Showing 50 of 50 results
A search is presented for the pair production of higgsinos $\tilde{\chi}$ in gauge-mediated supersymmetry models, where the lightest neutralinos $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decay into a light gravitino $\tilde{G}$ either via a Higgs $h$ or $Z$ boson. The search is performed with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV. It targets final states in which a Higgs boson decays into a photon pair, while the other Higgs or $Z$ boson decays into a $b\bar{b}$ pair, with missing transverse momentum associated with the two gravitinos. Search regions dependent on the amount of missing transverse momentum are defined by the requirements that the diphoton mass should be consistent with the mass of the Higgs boson, and the $b\bar{b}$ mass with the mass of the Higgs or $Z$ boson. The main backgrounds are estimated with data-driven methods using the sidebands of the diphoton mass distribution. No excesses beyond Standard Model expectations are observed and higgsinos with masses up to 320 GeV are excluded, assuming a branching fraction of 100% for $\tilde{\chi}_1^0\rightarrow h\tilde{G}$. This analysis excludes higgsinos with masses of 130 GeV for branching fractions to $h\tilde{G}$ as low as 36%, thus providing complementarity to previous ATLAS searches in final states with multiple leptons or multiple $b$-jets, targeting different decays of the electroweak bosons.
<b>- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - -</b> <b>Histograms:</b><ul> <li><a href=?table=Distribution1>Figure 3a: $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ Distribution in VR1</a> <li><a href=?table=Distribution2>Figure 3b: $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ Distribution in VR1</a> <li><a href=?table=Distribution3>Figure 3c: $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ Distribution in VR2</a> <li><a href=?table=Distribution4>Figure 3d: $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ Distribution in VR2</a> <li><a href=?table=Distribution5>Figure 4a: N-1 $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ Distribution for SR1h</a> <li><a href=?table=Distribution6>Figure 4b: N-1 $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ Distribution for SR1Z</a> <li><a href=?table=Distribution7>Figure 4c: N-1 $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ Distribution for SR2</a> <li><a href=?table=Distribution8>Auxiliary Figure 1: Signal and Validation Region Yields</a> </ul> <b>Tables:</b><ul> <li><a href=?table=YieldsTable1>Table 3: Signal Region Yields & Model-independent Limits</a> <li><a href=?table=Cutflow1>Auxiliary Table 1: Benchmark Signal Cutflows</a> </ul> <b>Cross section limits:</b><ul> <li><a href=?table=X-sectionU.L.1>Figure 5: 1D Cross-section Limits</a> <li><a href=?table=X-sectionU.L.2>Auxiliary Figure 3: 2D Cross-section Limits</a> </ul> <b>2D CL limits:</b><ul> <li><a href=?table=Exclusioncontour1>Figure 6: Expected Limit on $\mathrm{BF}(\tilde{\chi}_1^0\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$</a> <li><a href=?table=Exclusioncontour2>Figure 6: $+1\sigma$ Variation for Expected Limit on $\mathrm{BF}(\tilde{\chi}_1^0\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$</a> <li><a href=?table=Exclusioncontour3>Figure 6: $-1\sigma$ Variation for Expected Limit on $\mathrm{BF}(\tilde{\chi}_1^0\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$</a> <li><a href=?table=Exclusioncontour4>Figure 6: Observed Limit on $\mathrm{BF}(\tilde{\chi}_1^0\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$</a> <li><a href=?table=Exclusioncontour5>Figure 6: $+1\sigma$ Variation for Observed Limit on $\mathrm{BF}(\tilde{\chi}_1^0\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$</a> <li><a href=?table=Exclusioncontour6>Figure 6: $-1\sigma$ Variation for Observed Limit on $\mathrm{BF}(\tilde{\chi}_1^0\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$</a> </ul> <b>2D Acceptance and Efficiency maps:</b><ul> <li><a href=?table=Acceptance1>Auxiliary Figure 4a: Acceptances SR1h</a> <li><a href=?table=Acceptance2>Auxiliary Figure 4b: Acceptances SR1Z</a> <li><a href=?table=Acceptance3>Auxiliary Figure 4c: Acceptances SR2</a> <li><a href=?table=Efficiency1>Auxiliary Figure 5a: Efficiencies SR1h</a> <li><a href=?table=Efficiency2>Auxiliary Figure 5b: Efficiencies SR1Z</a> <li><a href=?table=Efficiency3>Auxiliary Figure 5c: Efficiencies SR2</a> </ul>
Distribution of the diphoton invariant mass in validation region VR1. The solid histograms are stacked to show the SM expectations after the 2×2D background estimation technique is applied. Background and signal predictions are normalised to the luminosity. The background category "h (other)" includes events originating from VBF, Vh, ggF, thq, thW and bb̄h, all subdominant in this signature. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated by the shaded area. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction for the respective bin. The first and last bins include the underflows and overflows respectively.
Distribution of the missing transverse momentum in validation region VR1. The solid histograms are stacked to show the SM expectations after the 2×2D background estimation technique is applied. Background and signal predictions are normalised to the luminosity. The background category "h (other)" includes events originating from VBF, Vh, ggF, thq, thW and bb̄h, all subdominant in this signature. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated by the shaded area. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction for the respective bin. The first and last bins include the underflows and overflows respectively.
Distribution of the diphoton invariant mass in validation region VR2. The solid histograms are stacked to show the SM expectations after the 2×2D background estimation technique is applied. Background and signal predictions are normalised to the luminosity. The background category "h (other)" includes events originating from VBF, Vh, ggF, thq, thW and bb̄h, all subdominant in this signature. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated by the shaded area. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction for the respective bin. The first and last bins include the underflows and overflows respectively.
Distribution of the missing transverse momentum in validation region VR2. The solid histograms are stacked to show the SM expectations after the 2×2D background estimation technique is applied. Background and signal predictions are normalised to the luminosity. The background category "h (other)" includes events originating from VBF, Vh, ggF, thq, thW and bb̄h, all subdominant in this signature. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated by the shaded area. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the data to the SM prediction for the respective bin. The first and last bins include the underflows and overflows respectively.
Distribution of the diphoton invariant mass with all selections of the signal regions applied, except on m<sub>γγ</sub> itself, for signal region SR1h. The background estimation techniques described in the text are applied. The different backgrounds are stacked to add up to the total SM prediction in each bin. The predicted yields for signal benchmark models of varying χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> mass are also overlaid (not stacked) assuming B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) to equal 100%. Background and signal predictions are normalised to the luminosity. The background category "h (other)" includes events originating from VBF, Vh, ggF, thq, thW and bb̄h, all subdominant in this signature. The sizes of the statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated by the shaded areas. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the SM prediction. Arrows indicate the borders of the signal region (|m<sub>γγ</sub>-125 GeV|<5 GeV). The first and last bins include the underflows and overflows respectively.
Distribution of the diphoton invariant mass with all selections of the signal regions applied, except on m<sub>γγ</sub> itself, for signal region SR1Z. The background estimation techniques described in the text are applied. The different backgrounds are stacked to add up to the total SM prediction in each bin. The predicted yields for signal benchmark models of varying χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> mass are also overlaid (not stacked) assuming B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) to equal 50%. Background and signal predictions are normalised to the luminosity. The background category "h (other)" includes events originating from VBF, Vh, ggF, thq, thW and bb̄h, all subdominant in this signature. The sizes of the statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated by the shaded areas. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the SM prediction. Arrows indicate the borders of the signal region (|m<sub>γγ</sub>-125 GeV|<5 GeV). The first and last bins include the underflows and overflows respectively.
Distribution of the diphoton invariant mass with all selections of the signal regions applied, except on m<sub>γγ</sub> itself, for signal region SR2. The background estimation techniques described in the text are applied. The different backgrounds are stacked to add up to the total SM prediction in each bin. The predicted yields for signal benchmark models of varying χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> mass are also overlaid (not stacked) assuming B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) to equal 100%. Background and signal predictions are normalised to the luminosity. The background category "h (other)" includes events originating from VBF, Vh, ggF, thq, thW and bb̄h, all subdominant in this signature. The sizes of the statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated by the shaded areas. The lower panels show the ratio of the data to the SM prediction. Arrows indicate the borders of the signal region (|m<sub>γγ</sub>-125 GeV|<5 GeV). The first and last bins include the underflows and overflows respectively.
Observed and expected limits on the pure higgsino cross-section at 95% CL assuming B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ )=100% for different χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> masses, obtained by a statistical combination of the three signal regions SR1h, SR1Z and SR2. The inner and outer bands indicate the 1σ and 2σ variation on the expected limit respectively.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the pure-higgsino branching fraction to B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) as a function of the higgsino mass m(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>) assuming it decays via either χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ hG̃ or χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ ZG̃. Limits are obtained by performing a statistical combination of the three signal regions SR1h, SR1Z and SR2. The ± 1σ variation on the expected limit is shown. The dotted lines indicate the observed limit obtained by a variation of theoretical prediction for the neutralino production cross-section by ±1 σ. Values of B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) larger than the observed 95% CL limit are excluded, as indicated by the hatched area.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the pure-higgsino branching fraction to B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) as a function of the higgsino mass m(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>) assuming it decays via either χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ hG̃ or χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ ZG̃. Limits are obtained by performing a statistical combination of the three signal regions SR1h, SR1Z and SR2. The ± 1σ variation on the expected limit is shown. The dotted lines indicate the observed limit obtained by a variation of theoretical prediction for the neutralino production cross-section by ±1 σ. Values of B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) larger than the observed 95% CL limit are excluded, as indicated by the hatched area.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the pure-higgsino branching fraction to B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) as a function of the higgsino mass m(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>) assuming it decays via either χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ hG̃ or χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ ZG̃. Limits are obtained by performing a statistical combination of the three signal regions SR1h, SR1Z and SR2. The ± 1σ variation on the expected limit is shown. The dotted lines indicate the observed limit obtained by a variation of theoretical prediction for the neutralino production cross-section by ±1 σ. Values of B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) larger than the observed 95% CL limit are excluded, as indicated by the hatched area.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the pure-higgsino branching fraction to B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) as a function of the higgsino mass m(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>) assuming it decays via either χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ hG̃ or χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ ZG̃. Limits are obtained by performing a statistical combination of the three signal regions SR1h, SR1Z and SR2. The ± 1σ variation on the expected limit is shown. The dotted lines indicate the observed limit obtained by a variation of theoretical prediction for the neutralino production cross-section by ±1 σ. Values of B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) larger than the observed 95% CL limit are excluded, as indicated by the hatched area.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the pure-higgsino branching fraction to B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) as a function of the higgsino mass m(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>) assuming it decays via either χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ hG̃ or χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ ZG̃. Limits are obtained by performing a statistical combination of the three signal regions SR1h, SR1Z and SR2. The ± 1σ variation on the expected limit is shown. The dotted lines indicate the observed limit obtained by a variation of theoretical prediction for the neutralino production cross-section by ±1 σ. Values of B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) larger than the observed 95% CL limit are excluded, as indicated by the hatched area.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the pure-higgsino branching fraction to B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) as a function of the higgsino mass m(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>) assuming it decays via either χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ hG̃ or χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ ZG̃. Limits are obtained by performing a statistical combination of the three signal regions SR1h, SR1Z and SR2. The ± 1σ variation on the expected limit is shown. The dotted lines indicate the observed limit obtained by a variation of theoretical prediction for the neutralino production cross-section by ±1 σ. Values of B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) larger than the observed 95% CL limit are excluded, as indicated by the hatched area.
Numbers of signal and background events in the signal regions. The respective background estimation techniques are applied. The background category "h (other)" includes events originating from VBF, Vh, ggF, thq, thW and bb̄h, all subdominant in this signature. The different backgrounds are stacked to add up to the total Standard Model prediction in each bin. The predicted yields for signal benchmark models of varying χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> mass are also plotted (not stacked), assuming B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ )=100% and a χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> mass of 130 or 200 GeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties are indicated by the shaded areas in the top plot. The bottom panel shows the statistical significance <a href="https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PUBNOTES/ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-025/">[Ref]</a> of the difference between the SM prediction and the observed data in each region.
Observed 95% CL limits in pb on the pure higgsino cross-section, shown in the m(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>)-B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) plane. Limits are obtained by a statistical combination of the three signal regions SR1h, SR1Z and SR2, assuming the neutralino to decay via either χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ hG̃ or χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ ZG̃.
Acceptances for all signal model points considered in the analysis, shown in the m(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>)-B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) plane. Acceptances are provided separately for signal region SR1h, assuming the neutralino to decay via either χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ hG̃ or χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ ZG̃.
Acceptances for all signal model points considered in the analysis, shown in the m(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>)-B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) plane. Acceptances are provided separately for signal region SR1Z, assuming the neutralino to decay via either χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ hG̃ or χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ ZG̃.
Acceptances for all signal model points considered in the analysis, shown in the m(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>)-B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) plane. Acceptances are provided separately for signal region SR2, assuming the neutralino to decay via either χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ hG̃ or χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ ZG̃.
Efficiencies for all signal model points considered in the analysis, shown in the m(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>)-B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) plane. Efficiencies are provided separately for signal region SR1h, assuming the neutralino to decay via either χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ hG̃ or χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ ZG̃.
Efficiencies for all signal model points considered in the analysis, shown in the m(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>)-B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) plane. Efficiencies are provided separately for signal region SR1Z, assuming the neutralino to decay via either χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ hG̃ or χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ ZG̃.
Efficiencies for all signal model points considered in the analysis, shown in the m(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>)-B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ ) plane. Efficiencies are provided separately for signal region SR2, assuming the neutralino to decay via either χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ hG̃ or χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub>→ ZG̃.
Observed and expected numbers of events in the three signal regions. The background category "h (other)" includes events originating from VBF, Vh, ggF, thq, thW and bb̄h, all subdominant in this signature. The table also includes model-independent 95% CL upper limits on the visible number of BSM events (S<sup>95</sup><sub>obs</sub>), the number of BSM events given the expected number of background events (S<sup>95</sup><sub>exp</sub>) and the visible BSM cross-section (⟨ε σ⟩<sub>obs</sub><sup>95</sup>), all calculated from pseudo-experiments. The discovery p-value (p<sub>0</sub>) is also shown and its value is capped at 0.5 if the observed number of events is below the expected number of events.
Cutflows of two benchmark signal points assuming B(χ̃<sup>0</sup><sub>1</sub> → hG̃ )=100% for all three discovery signal regions. The initial selection includes the leptons veto. Only statistical uncertainties are included. Expected yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>.
This paper presents a search for pair production of higgsinos, the supersymmetric partners of the Higgs bosons, in scenarios with gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking. Each higgsino is assumed to decay into a Higgs boson and a nearly massless gravitino. The search targets events where each Higgs boson decays into $b\bar{b}$, leading to a reconstructed final state with at least three energetic $b$-jets and missing transverse momentum. Two complementary analysis channels are used, with each channel specifically targeting either low or high values of the higgsino mass. The low-mass (high-mass) channel exploits 126 (139) fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV data collected by the ATLAS detector during Run 2 of the Large Hadron Collider. No significant excess above the Standard Model prediction is found. At 95% confidence level, masses between 130 GeV and 940 GeV are excluded for higgsinos decaying exclusively into Higgs bosons and gravitinos. Exclusion limits as a function of the higgsino decay branching ratio to a Higgs boson are also reported.
Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.
Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.
Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.
Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.
Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.
Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.
Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.
Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.
Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.
Post-fit SR yields of the high-mass channel. The upper panel shows the observed number of events, as well the post-fit background predictions in each region. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data and the total background prediction. The shaded areas correspond to the total statistical and systematic uncertainties obtained after the fit and described in Section 6.
Pre-fit data and background (reweighted $2b$) predictions for each $4b$ SR $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{eff}$ bin of the low-mass channel for the 2016 data-taking period. The bottom panel shows the significance of any differences between the observed $4b$ data and the background prediction. The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively. All systematics are included except the background normalization, which is 2.3%.
Pre-fit data and background (reweighted $2b$) predictions for each $4b$ SR $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{eff}$ bin of the low-mass channel for the 2017 data-taking period. The bottom panel shows the significance of any differences between the observed $4b$ data and the background prediction. The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively. All systematics are included except the background normalization, which is 3.7%.
Pre-fit data and background (reweighted $2b$) predictions for each $4b$ SR $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{eff}$ bin of the low-mass channel for the 2018 data-taking period. The bottom panel shows the significance of any differences between the observed $4b$ data and the background prediction. The $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ bands are shown in green and yellow, respectively. All systematics are included except the background normalization, which is 1.8%.
Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. Results from a previous ATLAS search using 24.3-36.1 fb$^{-1}$ [13] are shown by the solid (observed) and dashed (expected) blue lines. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the low-mass and high-mass channels. The low-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}<250$ GeV while the high-mass channel is used for $m_{\tilde{H}}\ge250$ GeV. The plot shows the 95% CL observed (solid) and expected (dashed) upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})$, assuming the theory cross section for higgsino pair production. The higgsinos are assumed to decay as $\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G}$ or $\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z + \tilde{G}$. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the low-mass channel. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the low-mass channel. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the high-mass channel. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Exclusion limits of the high-mass channel. The plot shows the observed (solid) and expected (dashed) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section of higgsino pair production, assuming a higgsino decay branching ratio of $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h + \tilde{G})=100\%$. The theory cross section and its uncertainty are shown by the solid red line and red shading. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the limits to the theory cross section. The phase space above the lines is excluded.
Results of the background-only fit in the low-mass channel discovery region SR_LM_150. Both pre-fit and post-fit values are shown.
Results of the background-only fit in the low-mass channel discovery region SR_LM_300. Both pre-fit and post-fit values are shown.
The experimental efficiency of the low-mass channel for the exclusion and discovery signal regions as a function of higgsino mass. The experimental efficiency is defined as the number of events passing the detector-level event selections divided by the number of events passing the event selections for a perfect detector. The denominator is obtained by implementing particle-level event selections that emulate the detector-level selections. This treats the lack of availability of $b$-jet triggers as an inefficiency.
The particle-level acceptance for the low-mass exclusion and discovery signal regions, shown as a function of higgsino mass. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events passing the particle-level event selection that emulates the detector-level selection. The acceptance calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons.
The experimental efficiency of the high-mass channel discovery regions as a function of higgsino mass. For each higgsino mass, the efficiency is shown for the SR-1 region corresponding to the mass. For masses above 1100 GeV, SR-1-1100 is used. The experimental efficiency is defined as the number of events passing the detector-level event selections divided by the number of events passing the event selections for a perfect detector. The denominator is obtained by implementing particle-level event selections that emulate the detector-level selections. The efficiency calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons.
The particle-level acceptance for the high-mass signal regions, shown as a function of higgsino mass. For each higgsino mass, the acceptance is shown for the SR-1 region corresponding to the mass. For masses above 1100 GeV, SR-1-1100 is used. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events passing the particle-level event selection that emulates the detector-level selection. The acceptance calculation considers only those signal events where both higgsinos decay to Higgs bosons.
Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 130 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 150 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 200 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 250 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 300 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 400 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 500 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 600 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 700 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 800 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 900 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 1000 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the low-mass channel for a representative 1100 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. The $b$-jet cut requires 4 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>40$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, with the availability of $b$-jet triggers lowering the luminosity to 126 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 200 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 250 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 300 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 400 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 500 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 600 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 700 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 800 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 900 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1000 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1100 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1200 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1300 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1400 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Cutflow for the high-mass channel for a representative 1500 GeV signal. The preselection requires 4 or more jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV and 2 or more $b$-jets with $p_\text{T}>25$ GeV. As the samples are generated with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow h\tilde{G})$=50%, $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{H}\rightarrow Z\tilde{G})$=50% to allow for both decays to be studied, the $hh$ events selection is used to select the events where each of the higgsinos decays to a Higgs boson. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. All selections are cumulative, with the exception of the SR cuts, which are each applied separately.
Higgsinos with masses near the electroweak scale can solve the hierarchy problem and provide a dark matter candidate, while detecting them at the LHC remains challenging if their mass-splitting is $\mathcal{O}$(1 GeV). This Letter presents a novel search for nearly mass-degenerate higgsinos in events with an energetic jet, missing transverse momentum, and a low-momentum track with a significant transverse impact parameter using 140 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment. For the first time since LEP, a range of mass-splittings between the lightest charged and neutral higgsinos from 0.3 GeV to 0.9 GeV is excluded at 95% confidence level, with a maximum reach of approximately 170 GeV in the higgsino mass.
Number of expected and observed data events in the SR (top), and the model-independent upper limits obtained from their consistency (bottom). The symbol $\tau_{\ell}$ ($\tau_{h}$) refers to fully-leptonic (hadron-involved) tau decays. The Others category includes contributions from minor background processes including $t\bar{t}$, single-top and diboson. The individual uncertainties can be correlated and do not necessarily sum up in quadrature to the total uncertainty. The bottom section shows the observed 95% CL upper limits on the visible cross-section ($\langle\epsilon\sigma\rangle_{\mathrm{obs}}^{95}$), on the number of generic signal events ($S_{\mathrm{obs}}^{95}$) as well as the expected limit ($S_{\mathrm{exp}}^{95}$) given the expected number (and $\pm 1\sigma$ deviations from the expectation) of background events.
Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.
Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.
Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.
Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.
Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.
Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino simplified model being considered. These are shown with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively. The limits set by the latest ATLAS searches using the soft lepton and disappearing track signatures are illustrated by the blue and green regions, respectively, while the limit imposed by the LEP experiments is shown in gray. The dot-dashed gray line indicates the predicted mass-splitting for the pure higgsino scenario.
Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.
Expected and observed CLs values per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.
Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.
Expected and observed cross-section upper-limit per signal point represented by the grey numbers. The expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits are overlaid along with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{exp}}$ (yellow band) from experimental systematic and statistical uncertainties, and with $\pm 1\sigma_{\mathrm{theory}}^{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ (red dotted lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties, respectively.
Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.
Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.
Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.
Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.
Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.
Truth-level signal acceptances for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$) in a SR with the $S(d_0)$ requirement removed. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of accepted events divided by the total number of events in the generator-level signal Monte Carlo simulation, where the signal candidate track is identified as the charged particle with the largest distance between the interaction vertex and the secondary vertex of the higgsino decays.
Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.
Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.
Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.
Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.
Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.
Signal efficiencies in SR-Low for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.
Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.
Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.
Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.
Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.
Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.
Signal efficiencies in SR-High for each production process ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$), defined by the number of events of reconstructed-level signal simulation divided by the number of events obtained at generator level, where the $S(d_0)$ selecton efficiency has the largest impact. The higgsino decay products from $\Delta \mathrm{m}(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0) < 0.4$ GeV signal have $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ too low to be reconstructed as the signal candidate tracks, and therefore the identified signal candidate tracks are typically from pile-up collisions or underlying events similar to the QCD track background, causing a low $S(d_0)$ selection efficiency in these plots.
Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 1.5, 1.0, and 0.75 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.
Event selection cutflows for signal samples with $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 150 GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^\pm, \tilde{\chi}_{1}^0)$ = 0.5, 0.35, and 0.25 GeV, including all six production processes ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$, $\tilde{\chi}_1^+ \tilde{\chi}_1^-$, and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \tilde{\chi}_1^0$). The cross-section used to obtain the initial number of events ($\sigma(\mathrm{n}_{\mathrm{jets}}) \geq 1$) refers to an emission of at least one gluon or quark with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50$ GeV at the parton level.
A search for a heavy CP-odd Higgs boson, $A$, decaying into a $Z$ boson and a heavy CP-even Higgs boson, $H$, is presented. It uses the full LHC Run 2 dataset of $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV collected with the ATLAS detector, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $140$ fb$^{-1}$. The search for $A\to ZH$ is performed in the $\ell^+\ell^- t\bar{t}$ and $\nu\bar{\nu}b\bar{b}$ final states and surpasses the reach of previous searches in different final states in the region with $m_H>350$ GeV and $m_A>800$ GeV. No significant deviation from the Standard Model expectation is found. Upper limits are placed on the production cross-section times the decay branching ratios. Limits with less model dependence are also presented as functions of the reconstructed $m(t\bar{t})$ and $m(b\bar{b})$ distributions in the $\ell^+\ell^- t\bar{t}$ and $\nu\bar{\nu}b\bar{b}$ channels, respectively. In addition, the results are interpreted in the context of two-Higgs-doublet models.
<b><u>Overview of HEPData Record</u></b><br> <b>Upper limits on cross-sections:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=Cross-section%20limits%20for%20lltt,%20ggF,%20tanbeta=0.5">95% CL upper limit on ggF A->ZH(tt) production for tanb=0.5</a> <li><a href="?table=Cross-section%20limits%20for%20lltt,%20ggF,%20tanbeta=1">95% CL upper limit on ggF A->ZH(tt) production for tanb=1</a> <li><a href="?table=Cross-section%20limits%20for%20lltt,%20ggF,%20tanbeta=5">95% CL upper limit on ggF A->ZH(tt) production for tanb=5</a> <li><a href="?table=Cross-section%20limits%20for%20lltt,%20bbA,%20tanbeta=1">95% CL upper limit on bbA A->ZH(tt) production for tanb=1</a> <li><a href="?table=Cross-section%20limits%20for%20lltt,%20bbA,%20tanbeta=5">95% CL upper limit on bbA A->ZH(tt) production for tanb=5</a> <li><a href="?table=Cross-section%20limits%20for%20lltt,%20bbA,%20tanbeta=10">95% CL upper limit on bbA A->ZH(tt) production for tanb=10</a> <li><a href="?table=Cross-section%20limits%20for%20vvbb,%20ggA,%20tanbeta=0.5">95% CL upper limit on ggF A->ZH(bb) production for tanb=0.5</a> <li><a href="?table=Cross-section%20limits%20for%20vvbb,%20ggA,%20tanbeta=1">95% CL upper limit on ggF A->ZH(bb) production for tanb=1</a> <li><a href="?table=Cross-section%20limits%20for%20vvbb,%20ggA,%20tanbeta=5">95% CL upper limit on ggF A->ZH(bb) production for tanb=5</a> <li><a href="?table=Cross-section%20limits%20for%20vvbb,%20bbA,%20tanbeta=1">95% CL upper limit on bbA A->ZH(bb) production for tanb=1</a> <li><a href="?table=Cross-section%20limits%20for%20vvbb,%20bbA,%20tanbeta=5">95% CL upper limit on bbA A->ZH(bb) production for tanb=5</a> <li><a href="?table=Cross-section%20limits%20for%20vvbb,%20bbA,%20tanbeta=10">95% CL upper limit on bbA A->ZH(bb) production for tanb=10</a> <li><a href="?table=Cross-section%20limits%20for%20vvbb,%20bbA,%20tanbeta=20">95% CL upper limit on bbA A->ZH(bb) production for tanb=20</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=m(tt),L3hi_Zin,ggF-production">m(tt) distribution in the L3hi_Zin region of the lltt channel</a> <li><a href="?table=m(bb),2tag,0L,ggF-production">m(bb) distribution in the 2 b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel</a> <li><a href="?table=m(bb),3ptag,0L,bbA-production">m(bb) distribution in the 3p b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel</a> <li><a href="?table=m(lltt)-m(tt),L3hi_Zin_Hin450,bbA-production">Fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis with the bbA signal shown</a> <li><a href="?table=m(tt),L3hi_Zin,bbA-production">m(tt) distribution in the L3hi_Zin region of the lltt channel with the bbA signal shown</a> <li><a href="?table=m(lltt)-m(tt),L3hi_Zin_Hin350,ggF-production">Fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=350 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=m(lltt)-m(tt),L3hi_Zin_Hin400,ggF-production">Fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=400 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=m(lltt)-m(tt),L3hi_Zin_Hin450,ggF-production">Fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=m(lltt)-m(tt),L3hi_Zin_Hin500,ggF-production">Fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=500 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=m(lltt)-m(tt),L3hi_Zin_Hin550,ggF-production">Fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=550 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=m(lltt)-m(tt),L3hi_Zin_Hin600,ggF-production">Fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=600 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=m(lltt)-m(tt),L3hi_Zin_Hin700,ggF-production">Fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=700 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=m(lltt)-m(tt),L3hi_Zin_Hin800,ggF-production">Fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=800 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,2tag,0L_Hin130,ggF-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=130 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,2tag,0L_Hin150,ggF-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=150 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,2tag,0L_Hin200,ggF-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=200 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,2tag,0L_Hin250,ggF-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=250 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,2tag,0L_Hin300,ggF-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=300 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,2tag,0L_Hin350,ggF-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=350 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,2tag,0L_Hin400,ggF-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=400 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,2tag,0L_Hin450,ggF-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,2tag,0L_Hin500,ggF-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=500 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,2tag,0L_Hin600,ggF-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=600 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,2tag,0L_Hin700,ggF-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=700 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,2tag,0L_Hin800,ggF-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=800 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,3ptag,0L_Hin130,bbA-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 3p b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=130 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,3ptag,0L_Hin150,bbA-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 3p b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=150 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,3ptag,0L_Hin200,bbA-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 3p b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=200 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,3ptag,0L_Hin250,bbA-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 3p b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=250 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,3ptag,0L_Hin300,bbA-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 3p b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=300 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,3ptag,0L_Hin350,bbA-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 3p b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=350 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,3ptag,0L_Hin400,bbA-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 3p b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=400 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,3ptag,0L_Hin450,bbA-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 3p b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,3ptag,0L_Hin500,bbA-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 3p b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=500 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,3ptag,0L_Hin600,bbA-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 3p b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=600 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,3ptag,0L_Hin700,bbA-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 3p b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=700 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,3ptag,0L_Hin800,bbA-production">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 3p b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=800 GeV hypothesis</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,2tag,2L">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 2L region of the vvbb channel</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,2tag,em">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the em region of the vvbb channel</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,3ptag,2L">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the 2L region of the vvbb channel</a> <li><a href="?table=mTVH,3ptag,em">Fit discriminant mT(VH) in the em region of the vvbb channel</a> <li><a href="?table=lep3pt,L3hi_Zin">pT(lepton,3) distribution in the L3hi_Zin region of the lltt channel</a> <li><a href="?table=etaHrestVH,L3hi_Zin">eta(H,VH rest frame) distribution in the signal region of the lltt channel</a> <li><a href="?table=ETmiss,2tag,0L">ETmiss distribution in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel</a> <li><a href="?table=mtopnear,2tag,0L">m(top,near) distribution in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel</a> <li><a href="?table=ETmiss,3ptag,0L">ETmiss distribution in the 3p b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel</a> <li><a href="?table=mtopnear,3ptag,0L">m(top,near) distribution in the 3p b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel</a> </ul> <b>Observed local significance:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=Local%20significance,%20lltt,%20ggF%20production">ggF A->ZH->lltt signals</a> <li><a href="?table=Local%20significance,%20lltt,%20bbA%20production">bbA A->ZH->lltt signals</a> <li><a href="?table=Local%20significance,%20vvbb,%20ggF%20production">ggF A->ZH->vvbb signals</a> <li><a href="?table=Local%20significance,%20vvbb,%20bbA%20production">bbA A->ZH->vvbb signals</a> </ul> <b>Acceptance and efficiency:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=Acceptance*efficiency,%20lltt,%20ggF%20production">ggF A->ZH->lltt signals</a> <li><a href="?table=Acceptance*efficiency,%20lltt,%20bbA%20production">bbA A->ZH->lltt signals</a> <li><a href="?table=Acceptance*efficiency,%20vvbb,%20ggF%20production">ggF A->ZH->vvbb signals</a> <li><a href="?table=Acceptance*efficiency,%20vvbb,%20bbA%20production">bbA A->ZH->vvbb signals</a> </ul>
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=300 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=300 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The m(tt) distribution in the Lhi3_Zin region of the lltt channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The m(bb) distribution in the 2 b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The m(bb) distribution in the 3+ b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=1. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt)$ in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=10. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=1. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=10. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt) in he (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=0.5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=1. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt)$ in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=0.5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=1. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=20. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis with the bbA signal shown for comparison. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The m(tt) distribution in the L3hi_Zin region of the lltt channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis with the bbA signal shown for comparison. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=350 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=400 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=500 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=550 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=600 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=700 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=800 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=130 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=150 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=200 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=250 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=350 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=400 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=500 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=600 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=700 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=800 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH i+ the 3p b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=130 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=150 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=200 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=250 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=350 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=400 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=500 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=600 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=700 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=800 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag 2L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag em region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag 2L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag em region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Local significance for lltt ggF signals for tanbeta=1. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Local significance for lltt bbA signals for tanbeta=20. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Local significance for vvbb ggF signals for tanbeta=1. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Local significance for vvbb bbA signals for tanbeta=20. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Signal acceptance times efficiency for lltt ggF signals. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Signal acceptance times efficiency for lltt bbA signals. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Signal acceptance times efficiency for vvbb ggF signals. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Signal acceptance times efficiency for vvbb bbA signals. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The pT distribution of the third lepton in the L3hi_Zin region of the lltt channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The eta distribution of the H boson candidate in the rest frame of the A boson candidate in the L3hi_Zin region of the lltt channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The ETmiss distribution in the 2 b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The m_top_near distribution in the 2 b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The ETmiss distribution in the 3+ b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The m_top_near distribution in the 3+ b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
A search for a new massive charged gauge boson, $W'$, is performed with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The dataset used in this analysis was collected from proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} =13$ TeV, and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The reconstructed $tb$ invariant mass is used to search for a $W'$ boson decaying into a top quark and a bottom quark. The result is interpreted in terms of a $W'$ boson with purely right-handed or left-handed chirality in a mass range of 0.5-6 TeV. Different values for the coupling of the $W'$ boson to the top and bottom quarks are considered, taking into account interference with single-top-quark production in the $s$-channel. No significant deviation from the background prediction is observed. The results are expressed as upper limits on the $W' \rightarrow tb$ production cross-section times branching ratio as a function of the $W'$-boson mass and in the plane of the coupling vs the $W'$-boson mass.
<b>- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - -</b> <br><br> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=contour_lh">$W^{\prime}_L$ exclusion contour</a> <li><a href="?table=contour_rh">$W^{\prime}_R$ exclusion contour</a> </ul> <b>Upper limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=limit_lh_gf05">$W^{\prime}_L$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 0.5 upper limit</a> <li><a href="?table=limit_lh_gf10">$W^{\prime}_L$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 1.0 upper limit</a> <li><a href="?table=limit_lh_gf20">$W^{\prime}_L$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 2.0 upper limit</a> <li><a href="?table=limit_rh_gf05">$W^{\prime}_R$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 0.5 upper limit</a> <li><a href="?table=limit_rh_gf10">$W^{\prime}_R$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 1.0 upper limit</a> <li><a href="?table=limit_rh_gf20">$W^{\prime}_R$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 2.0 upper limit</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=0l_sr1">0L channel Signal Region 1</a> <li><a href="?table=0l_sr2">0L channel Signal Region 2</a> <li><a href="?table=0l_sr3">0L channel Signal Region 3</a> <li><a href="?table=0l_vr">0L channel Validation Region</a> <li><a href="?table=1l_sr_2j1b">1L channel 2j1b Signal Region</a> <li><a href="?table=1l_sr_3j1b">1L channel 3j1b Signal Region</a> <li><a href="?table=1l_sr_2j2b">1L channel 2j2b Signal Region</a> <li><a href="?table=1l_sr_3j2b">1L channel 3j2b Signal Region</a> <li><a href="?table=1l_cr_2j1b">1L channel 2j1b Control Region</a> <li><a href="?table=1l_cr_3j1b">1L channel 3j1b Control Region</a> <li><a href="?table=1l_vr_2j1b">1L channel 2j1b Validation Region</a> <li><a href="?table=1l_vr_3j1b">1L channel 3j1b Validation Region</a> </ul> <b>Acceptance and efficiencies:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=acc_0l_lh_gf10">0L channel $W^{\prime}_L$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 1.0 Acc. X Eff.</a> <li><a href="?table=acc_0l_lh_gf05">0L channel $W^{\prime}_L$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 0.5 Acc. X Eff.</a> <li><a href="?table=acc_0l_lh_gf20">0L channel $W^{\prime}_L$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 2.0 Acc. X Eff.</a> <li><a href="?table=acc_1l_lh_gf10">1L channel $W^{\prime}_L$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 1.0 Acc. X Eff.</a> <li><a href="?table=acc_1l_lh_gf05">1L channel $W^{\prime}_L$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 0.5 Acc. X Eff.</a> <li><a href="?table=acc_1l_lh_gf20">1L channel $W^{\prime}_L$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 2.0 Acc. X Eff.</a> <li><a href="?table=acc_0l_rh_gf10">0L channel $W^{\prime}_R$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 1.0 Acc. X Eff.</a> <li><a href="?table=acc_0l_rh_gf05">0L channel $W^{\prime}_R$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 0.5 Acc. X Eff.</a> <li><a href="?table=acc_0l_rh_gf20">0L channel $W^{\prime}_R$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 2.0 Acc. X Eff.</a> <li><a href="?table=acc_1l_rh_gf10">1L channel $W^{\prime}_R$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 1.0 Acc. X Eff.</a> <li><a href="?table=acc_1l_rh_gf05">1L channel $W^{\prime}_R$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 0.5 Acc. X Eff.</a> <li><a href="?table=acc_1l_rh_gf20">1L channel $W^{\prime}_R$ $g^{\prime}/g$ = 2.0 Acc. X Eff.</a> </ul>
Distribution (events/100 GeV) of the reconstructed $m_{tb}$ for data and backgrounds in the 0-lepton channel's signal region 1 after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.
Distribution (events/100 GeV) of the reconstructed $m_{tb}$ for data and backgrounds in the 0-lepton channel's signal region 2 after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.
Distribution (events/100 GeV) of the reconstructed $m_{tb}$ for data and backgrounds in the 0-lepton channel's the signal region 3 after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.
Distribution (events/100 GeV) of the reconstructed $m_{tb}$ for data and backgrounds in the 0-lepton channel's validation region before the fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the pre-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained before the fit, too. There is also the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.
Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 2j1b signal region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.
Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 3j1b signal region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.
Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 2j2b signal region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.
Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 3j2b signal region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.
Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 2j1b control region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.
Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 3j1b control region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.
Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 2j1b validation region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.
Reconstructed $m_{tb}$ distributions (events/50 GeV) for data and backgrounds in the 1-lepton channel's 3j1b validation region after the background-only fit to data. The systematics uncertainty is shown for the post-fit background sum, including the background statistical uncertainty. The individual background components are obtained after the fit, too. There are also the pre-fit background sum and the expected signal distribution. The distribution of the $W^{\prime}$ boson signal for a mass of 3 TeV is normalised to the predicted cross-section. The last bin in each distribution includes overflow.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and left-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=0.5. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and left-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=1.0. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and left-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=2.0. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and right-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=0.5. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and right-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=1.0. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section times branching ratio for the production of a $W^{\prime}$ boson with decay to tb and right-handed couplings as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson and a coupling value of $g^{\prime}/g$=2.0. The observed and expected limits are derived using a linear interpolation between simulated signal mass hypotheses. The uncertainty on the theory prediction includes components from factorisation and renormalisation scales, PDFs, the strong coupling constant, and the top-quark mass.
95% CL limits on the coupling value ($g^{\prime}/g$) and the $W^{\prime}$-boson mass for left-handed $W^{\prime}$-boson couplings. The area above the line is excluded.
95% CL limits on the coupling value ($g^{\prime}/g$) and the $W^{\prime}$-boson mass for right-handed $W^{\prime}$-boson couplings. The area above the line is excluded.
The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=1$.
The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=0.5$.
The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=2$.
The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=1$.
The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=0.5$.
The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with left-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=2$.
The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=1$.
The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=0.5$.
The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the three signal regions of the 0-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=2$.
The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=1$.
The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=0.5$.
The product of fiducial acceptance and selection efficiency for the four signal regions of the 1-lepton channel as a function of the mass of the $W^{\prime}$ boson with right-handed chirality. The $W^{\prime}$ boson coupling strength is set to $g^{\prime}/g=2$.
A search for pair production of squarks or gluinos decaying via sleptons or weak bosons is reported. The search targets a final state with exactly two leptons with same-sign electric charge or at least three leptons without any charge requirement. The analysed data set corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton$-$proton collisions collected at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Multiple signal regions are defined, targeting several SUSY simplified models yielding the desired final states. A single control region is used to constrain the normalisation of the $WZ$+jets background. No significant excess of events over the Standard Model expectation is observed. The results are interpreted in the context of several supersymmetric models featuring R-parity conservation or R-parity violation, yielding exclusion limits surpassing those from previous searches. In models considering gluino (squark) pair production, gluino (squark) masses up to 2.2 (1.7) TeV are excluded at 95% confidence level.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(a) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(a) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(a) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(a) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(a) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$
Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$
Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$
One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$
Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$
Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$
One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
One $\sigma$ band of expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from Fig 7(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
N-1 distribution for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$of observed data and expected background in SRGGWZ-H.
N-1 distribution for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$of observed data and expected background in SRGGSlep-M.
N-1 distribution for $\sum{p_{\mathrm{T}}^\mathrm{jet}}$of observed data and expected background in SRUDD-ge2b.
N-1 distribution for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$of observed data and expected background in SRLQD.
N-1 distribution for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$of observed data and expected background in SRSSWZ-H.
N-1 distribution for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$of observed data and expected background in SRSSSlep-H(loose).
Signal acceptance for SRGGWZ-H signal region from Fig 10(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal efficiency for SRGGWZ-H signal region from Fig 15(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal acceptance for SRGGWZ-M signal region from Fig 10(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal efficiency for SRGGWZ-M signal region from Fig 15(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal acceptance for SRGGWZ-L signal region from Fig 10(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal efficiency for SRGGWZ-L signal region from Fig 15(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal acceptance for SRGGSlep-L signal region from Fig 12(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal efficiency for SRGGSlep-L signal region from Fig 17(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal acceptance for SRGGSlep-M signal region from Fig 12(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal efficiency for SRGGSlep-M signal region from Fig 17(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal acceptance for SRGGSlep-H signal region from Fig 12(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal efficiency for SRGGSlep-H signal region from Fig 17(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal acceptance for SRUDD-1b signal region from Fig 14(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$
Signal efficiency for SRUDD-1b signal region from Fig 19(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$
Signal acceptance for SRUDD-2b signal region from Fig 14(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$
Signal efficiency for SRUDD-2b signal region from Fig 19(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$
Signal acceptance for SRUDD-ge2b signal region from Fig 14(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$
Signal efficiency for SRUDD-ge2b signal region from Fig 19(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$
Signal acceptance for SRUDD-ge3b signal region from Fig 14(e) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$
Signal efficiency for SRUDD-ge3b signal region from Fig 19(e) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$
Signal acceptance for SRLQD signal region from Fig 14(a) in a SUSY scenario where direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$
Signal efficiency for SRLQD signal region from Fig 19(a) in a SUSY scenario where direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$
Signal acceptance for SRSSWZ-L signal region from Fig 11(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal efficiency for SRSSWZ-L signal region from Fig 16(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal acceptance for SRSSWZ-ML signal region from Fig 11(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal efficiency for SRSSWZ-ML signal region from Fig 16(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal acceptance for SRSSWZ-MH signal region from Fig 11(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal efficiency for SRSSWZ-MH signal region from Fig 16(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal acceptance for SRSSWZ-H signal region from Fig 11(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal efficiency for SRSSWZ-H signal region from Fig 16(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-H signal region from Fig 13(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-H signal region from Fig 18(d) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-MH signal region from Fig 13(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-MH signal region from Fig 18(c) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-L signal region from Fig 13(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-L signal region from Fig 18(a) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-ML signal region from Fig 13(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-ML signal region from Fig 18(b) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal acceptance for SRSSSlep-H(loose) signal region from Fig 13(e) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Signal efficiency for SRSSSlep-H(loose) signal region from Fig 18(e) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGWZ-H in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 1000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGWZ-M in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 1000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGWZ-L in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1400 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 1000 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGSlep-L in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 2000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 500 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGSlep-M in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 2000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 500 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRGGSlep-H in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 2000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 500 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRUDD-1b in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRUDD-2b in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRUDD-ge2b in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRUDD-ge3b in a susy scenario where $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRLQD in a susy scenario where direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{g})$ = 2200 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 1870 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSWZ-L in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSWZ-ML in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSWZ-MH in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSWZ-H in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 600 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-H in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-MH in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-L in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-ML in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SRSSSlep-H(loose) in a susy scenario where $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{q})$ = 1000 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(a) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(c) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(f) for $\tilde{g}$ decays into anti-top and $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{t}$ decays via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda''$
Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(e) for direct $\tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$ decay into SM leptons and quarks via a non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda'$
Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(b) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into SM gauge bosons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
Cross-section upper limits at 95% CL from Fig1(d) for $\tilde{q}$ decays into sleptons and subsequently to SM leptons and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$
A search is presented for a heavy resonance $Y$ decaying into a Standard Model Higgs boson $H$ and a new particle $X$ in a fully hadronic final state. The full Large Hadron Collider Run 2 dataset of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}= 13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS detector from 2015 to 2018 is used, and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The search targets the high $Y$-mass region, where the $H$ and $X$ have a significant Lorentz boost in the laboratory frame. A novel signal region is implemented using anomaly detection, where events are selected solely because of their incompatibility with a learned background-only model. It is defined using a jet-level tagger for signal-model-independent selection of the boosted $X$ particle, representing the first application of fully unsupervised machine learning to an ATLAS analysis. Two additional signal regions are implemented to target a benchmark $X$ decay into two quarks, covering topologies where the $X$ is reconstructed as either a single large-radius jet or two small-radius jets. The analysis selects Higgs boson decays into $b\bar{b}$, and a dedicated neural-network-based tagger provides sensitivity to the boosted heavy-flavor topology. No significant excess of data over the expected background is observed, and the results are presented as upper limits on the production cross section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Y \rightarrow XH \rightarrow q\bar{q}b\bar{b}$) for signals with $m_Y$ between 1.5 and 6 TeV and $m_X$ between 65 and 3000 GeV.
Acceptance times efficiency for signal grid in anomaly signal region.
Acceptance times efficiency for signal grid in anomaly signal region.
Acceptance times efficiency for signal grid in merged two-prong signal region.
Acceptance times efficiency for signal grid in merged two-prong signal region.
Acceptance times efficiency for signal grid in resolved two-prong signal region.
Acceptance times efficiency for signal grid in resolved two-prong signal region.
The obtained p-value from comparing data to background estimation across all bins, defined by windows in the X and Y particle masses, in the anomaly signal region.
The obtained p-value from comparing data to background estimation across all bins, defined by windows in the X and Y particle masses, in the anomaly signal region.
The expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Y \rightarrow XH \rightarrow q\bar{q}b\bar{b}$) in pb in the two-dimensional space of $m_Y$ versus $m_X$, obtained from a simultaneous fit of both merged and resolved two-prong signal regions with all statistical and systematic uncertainties.
The expected 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Y \rightarrow XH \rightarrow q\bar{q}b\bar{b}$) in pb in the two-dimensional space of $m_Y$ versus $m_X$, obtained from a simultaneous fit of both merged and resolved two-prong signal regions with all statistical and systematic uncertainties.
The observed 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Y \rightarrow XH \rightarrow q\bar{q}b\bar{b}$) in pb in the two-dimensional space of $m_Y$ versus $m_X$, obtained from a simultaneous fit of both merged and resolved two-prong signal regions with all statistical and systematic uncertainties.
The observed 95% CL limits on the cross-section $\sigma(pp \rightarrow Y \rightarrow XH \rightarrow q\bar{q}b\bar{b}$) in pb in the two-dimensional space of $m_Y$ versus $m_X$, obtained from a simultaneous fit of both merged and resolved two-prong signal regions with all statistical and systematic uncertainties.
A search for supersymmetry targeting the direct production of winos and higgsinos is conducted in final states with either two leptons ($e$ or $\mu$) with the same electric charge, or three leptons. The analysis uses 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV collected with the ATLAS detector during Run 2 of the Large Hadron Collider. No significant excess over the Standard Model expectation is observed. Simplified and complete models with and without $R$-parity conservation are considered. In topologies with intermediate states including either $Wh$ or $WZ$ pairs, wino masses up to 525 GeV and 250 GeV are excluded, respectively, for a bino of vanishing mass. Higgsino masses smaller than 440 GeV are excluded in a natural $R$-parity-violating model with bilinear terms. Upper limits on the production cross section of generic events beyond the Standard Model as low as 40 ab are obtained in signal regions optimised for these models and also for an $R$-parity-violating scenario with baryon-number-violating higgsino decays into top quarks and jets. The analysis significantly improves sensitivity to supersymmetric models and other processes beyond the Standard Model that may contribute to the considered final states.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for the WZ-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production from Fig 13(b) and Fig 8(aux).
positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for the WZ-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production from Fig 13(b) and Fig 8(aux).
negative $\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for the WZ-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production from Fig 13(b) and Fig 8(aux).
Observed excluded cross-section at 95% CL for the WZ-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production from Fig 8(aux).
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL for the WZ-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for the Wh-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production from from Fig 13(a) and from Fig 7 and Fig 10(aux).
Observed excluded cross-section at 95% CL for the Wh-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production from Fig 7(aux) and Fig 10(aux).
positive one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for the Wh-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production from from Fig 13(a) and from Fig 7 and Fig 10(aux).
negative one $\sigma$ observed exclusion limits at 95% CL for the Wh-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production from from Fig 13(a) and from Fig 7 and Fig 10(aux).
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL for the Wh-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL for the Wh-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL for the Wh-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region $SR^{bRPV}_{2l-SS}$. in a susy scenario where $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are produced in pairs and decay to all possible allowed bRPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV, tan$\beta$=5. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region $SR^{bRPV}_{3l}$. in a susy scenario where $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are produced in pairs and decay to all possible allowed bRPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV, tan$\beta$=5. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region $SR^{WZ}_{high-m_{T2}}$. The wino-like doublet pair ($\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$) were produced and then decays into $bino-like \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}$ which is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) accompanied by mass on-shell or mass off-shell W and Z bosons. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 150 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1})$ = 50 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region $SR^{WZ}_{low-m_{T2}}$. The wino-like doublet pair ($\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$) were produced and then decays into $bino-like \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}$ which is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) accompanied by mass on-shell or mass off-shell W and Z bosons. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 150 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1})$ = 50 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the low mass $SR^{RPV}_{2l1b}$, where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the medium mass $SR^{RPV}_{2l1b}$, where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the low mass $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}$, where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the medium mass $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}$, where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the high mass $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}$, where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the low mass $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}$, where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the medium mass $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}$, where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the high mass $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}$, where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 200 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the $SR^{Wh}_{low-m_{T2} }$. The wino-like doublet pair ($\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$) were produced and then decays into $bino-like \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}$ which is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) accompanied by mass on-shell or mass off-shell W and Higgs bosons. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 300 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1})$ = 100 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the $SR^{Wh}_{high-m_{T2} }$. The wino-like doublet pair ($\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$) were produced and then decays into $bino-like \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}$ which is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) accompanied by mass on-shell or mass off-shell W and Higgs bosons. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2})$ = 300 GeV, $m(\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1})$ = 100 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Signal Hepdataeptance for $SR^{bRPV}_{2l-SS}$ signal region from Fig 13(a)(aux) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are produced in pairs and decay to all possible allowed bRPV decays.
Signal Hepdataeptance for $SR^{bRPV}_{3l}$ signal region from Fig 13(b)(aux) in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are produced in pairs and decay to all possible allowed bRPV decays.
Signal acceptance for $SR^{WZ}_{high-m_{T2}}$ in a SUSY scenario where the wino-like doublet pair ($\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$) were produced and then decays into $bino-like \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}$ which is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) accompanied by mass on-shell or mass off-shell W and Z bosons.
Signal acceptance for $SR^{WZ}_{low-m_{T2}}$ in a SUSY scenario where the wino-like doublet pair ($\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$) were produced and then decays into $bino-like \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}$ which is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) accompanied by mass on-shell or mass off-shell W and Z bosons.
Signal acceptance for $SR^{RPV}_{2l1b}-L$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.
Signal acceptance for $SR^{RPV}_{2l1b}-M$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.
Signal acceptance for $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}-L$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.
Signal acceptance for $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}-M$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.
Signal acceptance for $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}-H$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.
Signal acceptance for $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}-L$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.
Signal acceptance for $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}-M$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.
Signal acceptance for $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}-H$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.
Signal efficiency for $SR^{bRPV}_{2l-SS}$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are produced in pairs and decay to all possible allowed bRPV decays.
Signal efficiency for $SR^{bRPV}_{3l}$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are produced in pairs and decay to all possible allowed bRPV decays.
Signal efficiency for $SR^{WZ}_{high-m_{T2}}$ in a SUSY scenario where the wino-like doublet pair ($\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$) were produced and then decays into $bino-like \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}$ which is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) accompanied by mass on-shell or mass off-shell W and Z bosons.
Signal efficiency for $SR^{WZ}_{low-m_{T2}}$ in a SUSY scenario where the wino-like doublet pair ($\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$) were produced and then decays into $bino-like \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1}$ which is the lightest SUSY particle (LSP) accompanied by mass on-shell or mass off-shell W and Z bosons.
Signal efficiency for $SR^{RPV}_{2l1b}-L$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.
Signal efficiency for $SR^{RPV}_{2l1b}-M$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.
Signal efficiency for $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}-L$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.
Signal efficiency for $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}-M$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.
Signal efficiency for $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}-H$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.
Signal efficiency for $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}-L$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.
Signal efficiency for $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}-M$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.
Signal efficiency for $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}-H$ signal region in a SUSY scenario where the $\tilde{\chi}^{0} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ are directly produced and undergoes prompt RPV decays.
Signal acceptance for $SR^{Wh}_{high-m_{T2} }$ signal region from Fig 11(a)(aux) in a SUSY scenario where direct production of a lightest $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ , decay with 100% branching ratio to a final state with a same sign light lepton (e or $\mu$) pair and two lightest neutralino1, via the on-shell emission of SM W and Higgs bosons,
Signal acceptance for $SR^{Wh}_{low-m_{T2} }$ signal region from Fig 11(b)(aux) in a SUSY scenario where direct production of a lightest $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ , decay with 100% branching ratio to a final state with a same sign light lepton (e or $\mu$) pair and two lightest neutralino1, via the on-shell emission of SM W and Higgs bosons,
Signal efficiency for $SR^{Wh}_{high-m_{T2} }$ signal region from Fig 15(a)(aux) in a SUSY scenario where direct production of a lightest $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ , decay with 100% branching ratio to a final state with a same sign light lepton (e or $\mu$) pair and two lightest neutralino1, via the on-shell emission of SM W and Higgs bosons,
Signal efficiency for $SR^{Wh}_{low-m_{T2} }$ signal region from Fig 15(b)(aux) in a SUSY scenario where direct production of a lightest $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm} _{1} and \tilde{\chi}^{0} _{2}$ , decay with 100% branching ratio to a final state with a same sign light lepton (e or $\mu$) pair and two lightest neutralino1, via the on-shell emission of SM W and Higgs bosons,
Observed 95% X-section upper limits as a function of higgsino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ mass in the bilinear RPV model from Fig 14.
Observed 95% X-section upper limits as a function of higgsino $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ mass in the UDD RPV model from Fig 18.
Observed 95% X-section upper limits as a function of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ mass in the WZ-mediated simplified model of wino $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ production from Fig 9(aux).
N-1 distributions for $m_{T2}$ of observed data and expected background towards $SR^{WZ}_{high-m_{T2}}$ from publication's Figure 11(a) . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $m_{T2}$ of observed data and expected background towards $SR^{WZ}_{low-m_{T2}}$ from publication's Figure 11(b) . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $m_{T2}$ of observed data and expected background towards $SR^{bRPV}_{2l-SS}$ from publication's Figure 11(c) . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $m_{T2}$ of observed data and expected background towards $SR^{bRPV}_{3l}$ from publication's Figure 11(d) . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $\sum p^{b-jet}_{T}/\sum p^{jet}_{T}$ of observed data and expected background towards $SR^{RPV}_{2l1b}-L$ from publication's Figure 16(a) . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $\sum p^{b-jet}_{T}/\sum p^{jet}_{T}$ of observed data and expected background towards $SR^{RPV}_{2l2b}-M$ from publication's Figure 16(b) . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $\sum p^{b-jet}_{T}/\sum p^{jet}_{T}$ of observed data and expected background towards $SR^{RPV}_{2l3b}-H$ from publication's Figure 16(c) . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distribution for $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{Wh}_{high-m_{T2} }$ in ee channel
N-1 distribution for $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{Wh}_{high-m_{T2} }$ in e$\mu$ channel
N-1 distribution for $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{Wh}_{high-m_{T2} }$ in $\mu\mu$ channel
N-1 distribution for $\mathcal{S}(E_{T}^{miss})$ in $SR^{Wh}_{low-m_{T2} }$ in ee channel
N-1 distribution for $\mathcal{S}(E_{T}^{miss})$ in $SR^{Wh}_{low-m_{T2} }$ in e$\mu$ channel
N-1 distribution for $\mathcal{S}(E_{T}^{miss})$ in $SR^{Wh}_{low-m_{T2} }$ in $\mu\mu$ channel
A search is presented for displaced production of Higgs bosons or $Z$ bosons, originating from the decay of a neutral long-lived particle (LLP) and reconstructed in the decay modes $H\rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ and $Z\rightarrow ee$. The analysis uses the full Run 2 data set of proton$-$proton collisions delivered by the LHC at an energy of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV between 2015 and 2018 and recorded by the ATLAS detector, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. Exploiting the capabilities of the ATLAS liquid argon calorimeter to precisely measure the arrival times and trajectories of electromagnetic objects, the analysis searches for the signature of pairs of photons or electrons which arise from a common displaced vertex and which arrive after some delay at the calorimeter. The results are interpreted in a gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking model with pair-produced higgsinos that decay to LLPs, and each LLP subsequently decays into either a Higgs boson or a $Z$ boson. The final state includes at least two particles that escape direct detection, giving rise to missing transverse momentum. No significant excess is observed above the background expectation. The results are used to set upper limits on the cross section for higgsino pair production, up to a $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass of 369 (704) GeV for decays with 100% branching ratio of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ to Higgs ($Z$) bosons for a $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns. A model-independent limit is also set on the production of pairs of photons or electrons with a significant delay in arrival at the calorimeter.
Average timing distributions for SR data and the estimated background as determined by the background-only fit, in each of the five exclusive $\rho$ categories. For comparison, the expected timing shapes for a few different signal models are superimposed, with each model labeled by the values of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass and lifetime, as well as decay mode. To provide some indication of the variations in signal yield and shape, three signal models are shown for each of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decay modes, namely $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $H \tilde G$ and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $Z \tilde G$. The models shown include a rather low $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value of 135 GeV for lifetimes of either 2 ns or 10 ns, and a higher $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value which is near the 95% CL exclusion limit for each decay mode for a lifetime of 2 ns. Each signal model is shown with the signal normalization corresponding to a BR value of unity for the decay mode in question.
Average timing distributions for SR data and the estimated background as determined by the background-only fit, in each of the five exclusive $\rho$ categories. For comparison, the expected timing shapes for a few different signal models are superimposed, with each model labeled by the values of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass and lifetime, as well as decay mode. To provide some indication of the variations in signal yield and shape, three signal models are shown for each of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decay modes, namely $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $H \tilde G$ and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $Z \tilde G$. The models shown include a rather low $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value of 135 GeV for lifetimes of either 2 ns or 10 ns, and a higher $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value which is near the 95% CL exclusion limit for each decay mode for a lifetime of 2 ns. Each signal model is shown with the signal normalization corresponding to a BR value of unity for the decay mode in question.
Average timing distributions for SR data and the estimated background as determined by the background-only fit, in each of the five exclusive $\rho$ categories. For comparison, the expected timing shapes for a few different signal models are superimposed, with each model labeled by the values of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass and lifetime, as well as decay mode. To provide some indication of the variations in signal yield and shape, three signal models are shown for each of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decay modes, namely $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $H \tilde G$ and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $Z \tilde G$. The models shown include a rather low $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value of 135 GeV for lifetimes of either 2 ns or 10 ns, and a higher $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value which is near the 95% CL exclusion limit for each decay mode for a lifetime of 2 ns. Each signal model is shown with the signal normalization corresponding to a BR value of unity for the decay mode in question.
Average timing distributions for SR data and the estimated background as determined by the background-only fit, in each of the five exclusive $\rho$ categories. For comparison, the expected timing shapes for a few different signal models are superimposed, with each model labeled by the values of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass and lifetime, as well as decay mode. To provide some indication of the variations in signal yield and shape, three signal models are shown for each of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decay modes, namely $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $H \tilde G$ and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $Z \tilde G$. The models shown include a rather low $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value of 135 GeV for lifetimes of either 2 ns or 10 ns, and a higher $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value which is near the 95% CL exclusion limit for each decay mode for a lifetime of 2 ns. Each signal model is shown with the signal normalization corresponding to a BR value of unity for the decay mode in question.
Average timing distributions for SR data and the estimated background as determined by the background-only fit, in each of the five exclusive $\rho$ categories. For comparison, the expected timing shapes for a few different signal models are superimposed, with each model labeled by the values of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass and lifetime, as well as decay mode. To provide some indication of the variations in signal yield and shape, three signal models are shown for each of the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decay modes, namely $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $H \tilde G$ and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow$ $Z \tilde G$. The models shown include a rather low $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value of 135 GeV for lifetimes of either 2 ns or 10 ns, and a higher $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass value which is near the 95% CL exclusion limit for each decay mode for a lifetime of 2 ns. Each signal model is shown with the signal normalization corresponding to a BR value of unity for the decay mode in question.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass (left) and $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime (right), for the different decay modes of $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$) = 1 (top) and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 (bottom). For the limits as a function of mass (lifetime), several signal models with varying lifetime (mass) are overlaid for comparison. Included are the theoretical expectations from higgsino production for each mass hypothesis, calculated from a GMSB SUSY model that assumes nearly degenerate $\tilde\chi^0_1$, $\tilde\chi^\pm_1$, and $\tilde\chi^0_2$.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.
The 95% CL limits on $\sigma(pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^0_1 \tilde\chi^0_1$) in fb as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ branching ratio to the SM Higgs boson, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow Z +\tilde{G}$) = 1 - $\mathcal{B}$($\tilde\chi^0_1$ $\rightarrow H + \tilde{G}$). Several signal hypotheses are overlaid that are labelled by the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass, all with a fixed $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime of 2 ns.
The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.
The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.
The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.
The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.
The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.
The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.
The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.
The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.
The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.
The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.
The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.
The 95% CL exclusion limits on the target signal hypothesis, for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ lifetime in ns as a function of $\tilde\chi^0_1$ mass in GeV. The overlaid curves correspond to different decay hypotheses, where the assumed cross-section is for higgsino production, and the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ or $Z + \tilde{G}$ such that $\mathcal{B}(H + \tilde{G}) + \mathcal{B}(Z + \tilde{G})$ = 100%. The curve shown in red represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $Z + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio. The curve shown in blue represents the decay hypothesis where the $\tilde\chi^0_1$ decays to $H + \tilde{G}$ with 100% branching ratio.
Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 10 ns, in the H decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.
Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 10 ns, in the Z decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.
Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 2 ns, in the H decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.
Cutflow for an example higgsino signal with mass 225 GeV and lifetime 2 ns, in the Z decay mode. Acceptance is defined at truth level, and efficiency compares the events passing at reconstruction level with respect to truth.
Acceptance across the H decay mode signal grid, calculated using truth information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns).
Acceptance across the Z decay mode signal grid, calculated using truth information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns).
Efficiency across the H decay mode signal grid, calculated using reco information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns). Here, the numerator is the signal yield passing the reco selection and the denominator is the signal yield passing the truth selection.
Efficiency across the Z decay mode signal grid, calculated using reco information. The selection applied corresponds to the model-independent signal region (i.e. the standard SR with $t_{\text{avg}$ > 0.9 ns). Here, the numerator is the signal yield passing the reco selection and the denominator is the signal yield passing the truth selection.
A search for forward proton scattering in association with light-by-light scattering mediated by an axion-like particle is presented, using the ATLAS Forward Proton spectrometer to detect scattered protons and the central ATLAS detector to detect pairs of outgoing photons. Proton-proton collision data recorded in 2017 at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV were analysed, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 14.6 fb$^{-1}$. A total of 441 candidate signal events were selected. A search was made for a narrow resonance in the diphoton mass distribution, corresponding to an axion-like particle (ALP) with mass in the range 150-1600 GeV. No excess is observed above a smooth background. Upper limits on the production cross section of a narrow resonance are set as a function of the mass, and are interpreted as upper limits on the ALP production coupling constant, assuming 100% decay branching ratio into a photon pair. The inferred upper limit on the coupling constant is in the range 0.04-0.09 TeV$^{-1}$ at 95%confidence level.
Signal selection efficiency as a function of ALP mass $m_{\textrm{X}}$ for the exclusive (EL), single-dissociative (SD), and double-dissociative (DD) processes. The ratio of the number of selected events to the number of generated MC events is given (black points) and is parameterised by an analytic function (red solid line). The linear (black dashed line) and cubic (blue chain line) interpolations of the black points are used to derive the envelopes (cyan filled region) which are regarded as systematic uncertainties.
The diphoton mass distribution of the mixed-data sample (black points).
The $(\xi_{\gamma\gamma}^{+},\xi_{\gamma\gamma}^{-})$ distribution of the selected data candidates after the full event selection in $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ in [150,1600] GeV with $m_{\gamma\gamma}$ contours (blue) and $y_{\gamma\gamma}$ contours (black). The range of $\xi_{\gamma\gamma}$ in which forward-proton matching is possible, $[0.035-\xi_{\textrm{th}}, 0.08+\xi_{\textrm{th}} ]$, for events that pass the matching requirement to the A or C side as indicated. No event passed the matching requirement for both the A-side and C-side.
Background-only fit to the observed numbers of events (black points) as a function of the diphoton invariant mass $m_{\gamma\gamma}$.
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the signal fiducial cross section $\sigma_{\textrm{fid}}$, assuming 100% branching ratio for ALP decay into two photons, as a function of the hypothetical ALP mass $m_{\textrm{X}}$. The 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence intervals are shown by the coloured bands.
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the the ALP coupling constant, assuming 100% branching ratio for ALP decay into two photons, as a function of the hypothetical ALP mass $m_{\textrm{X}}$. The 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ confidence intervals are shown by the coloured bands. Contours of the ALP natural width $\Gamma$ are illustrated by the smooth blue solid lines.
Fiducial region acceptance of signal events for coupling constant f$^{-1}=0.05$ TeV$^{-1}$. EL, SD, and DD stand for the exclusive, single-dissociative, and double-dissociative processes. The acceptances are parameterised as $p_0 + p^{i}_{1} e^{p_{2}^{i} m_{\textrm{X}}} + p_{3}^{i} e^{p_{4}^{i} m_{\textrm{X}}} $ , where $i$ specifies the process type, exclusive, single-dissociative, or double-dissociative.
Correction factors $A_{\textrm{X}}/A_{0}$ and $C_{\textrm{X}}$ for the exclusive signal events with ALP coupling constant f$^{-1}$=0.05 TeV$^{-1}$, where acceptance $A_{\textrm{X}}$ and efficiency $C_{\textrm{X}}$ are defined in arXiv:2102.13405. $A_{\textrm{X}}$/$A_{0}$ and $C_{\textrm{X}}$ are parameterised as $p_0 + p^{i}_{1} e^{p_{2}^{i} m_{\textrm{X}}} + p_{3}^{i} e^{p_{4}^{i} m_{\textrm{X}}}$, where $i$ specifies the process type.
Simulated ALP signal cutflow for $m_{\rm{X}}$=300 GeV and $m_{\rm{X}}$=1200 GeV. The yields are normalized to a luminosity of 14.6 fb$^{-1}$. Selections are applied for each side after the selection on acoplanarity. The union of the sets of selected events is taken finally.
A search is reported for excited $\tau$-leptons and leptoquarks in events with two hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons and two or more jets. The search uses proton-proton (pp) collision data at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV recorded by the ATLAS experiment during the Run 2 of the Large Hadron Collider in 2015-2018. The total integrated luminosity is 139 fb$^{-1}$. The excited $\tau$-lepton is assumed to be produced and to decay via a four-fermion contact interaction into an ordinary $\tau$-lepton and a quark-antiquark pair. The leptoquarks are assumed to be produced in pairs via the strong interaction, and each leptoquark is assumed to couple to a charm or lighter quark and a $\tau$-lepton. No excess over the background prediction is observed. Excited $\tau$-leptons with masses below 2.8 TeV are excluded at 95% CL in scenarios with the contact interaction scale $\Lambda$ set to 10 TeV. At the extreme limit of model validity where $\Lambda$ is set equal to the excited $\tau$-lepton mass, excited $\tau$-leptons with masses below 4.6 TeV are excluded. Leptoquarks with masses below 1.3 TeV are excluded at 95% CL if their branching ratio to a charm quark and a $\tau$-lepton equals 1. The analysis does not exploit flavour-tagging in the signal region.
Observed and expected upper 95% CL limit on the $\tau^\ast$ production cross-section as a function of $m_{\tau^\ast}$ for a fixed value of the contact interaction scale, $\Lambda = 10$ TeV.
Observed and expected lower 95% CL limit on the contact interaction scale $\Lambda$ as a function of $m_{\tau^\ast}$.
Observed and expected upper 95% CL limit on the LQ production cross-section as a function of $m_\mathrm{LQ}$. The LQ couples to a tau lepton and a c-quark. The limits are also valid for scenarios in which the LQ couples to lighter quarks.
Cutflow for two representative signal samples used in this analysis. The excited tau mass $m_{\tau^\ast} = 2.75$ TeV and the contact interaction scale $\Lambda=10$ TeV. The LQ mass $m_\mathrm{LQ} = 1.3$ TeV. The event yields include all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.
Acceptance x efficiency of the $\tau^\ast$ signal SR selection
Acceptance x efficiency of the LQ signal SR selection
A search for long-lived particles decaying into hadrons is presented. The analysis uses 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data collected at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV by the ATLAS detector at the LHC using events that contain multiple energetic jets and a displaced vertex. The search employs dedicated reconstruction techniques that significantly increase the sensitivity to long-lived particles decaying in the ATLAS inner detector. Background estimates for Standard Model processes and instrumental effects are extracted from data. The observed event yields are compatible with those expected from background processes. The results are used to set limits at 95% confidence level on model-independent cross sections for processes beyond the Standard Model, and on scenarios with pair-production of supersymmetric particles with long-lived electroweakinos that decay via a small $R$-parity-violating coupling. The pair-production of electroweakinos with masses below 1.5 TeV is excluded for mean proper lifetimes in the range from 0.03 ns to 1 ns. When produced in the decay of $m(\tilde{g})=2.4$ TeV gluinos, electroweakinos with $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=1.5$ TeV are excluded with lifetimes in the range of 0.02 ns to 4 ns.
<b>Tables of Yields:</b> <a href="?table=validation_regions_yields_highpt_SR">Validation Regions Summary Yields, High-pT jet selections</a> <a href="?table=validation_regions_yields_trackless_SR">Validiation Regions Summary Yields, Trackless jet selections</a> <a href="?table=yields_highpt_SR_observed">Signal region (and sidebands) observed yields, High-pT jet selections</a> <a href="?table=yields_highpt_SR_expected">Signal region (and sidebands) expected yields, High-pT jet selections</a> <a href="?table=yields_trackless_SR_observed">Signal region (and sidebands) observed yields, Trackless jet selections</a> <a href="?table=yields_trackless_SR_expected">Signal region (and sidebands) expected yields, Trackless jet selections</a> <b>Exclusion Contours:</b> <a href="?table=excl_ewk_exp_nominal">EWK RPV signal; expected, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_ewk_exp_up">EWK RPV signal; expected, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_ewk_exp_down">EWK RPV signal; expected, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_ewk_obs_nominal">EWK RPV signal; observed, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_ewk_obs_up">EWK RPV signal; observed, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_ewk_obs_down">EWK RPV signal; observed, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2400_GeV_exp_nominal">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.4 TeV; expected, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2400_GeV_exp_up">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.4 TeV; expected, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2400_GeV_exp_down">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.4 TeV; expected, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2400_GeV_obs_nominal">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.4 TeV; observed, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2400_GeV_obs_up">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.4 TeV; observed, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2400_GeV_obs_down">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.4 TeV; observed, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_xsec_ewk">EWK RPV signal; cross-section limits for fixed lifetime values.</a> <a href="?table=excl_xsec_strong_mgluino_2400">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.4 TeV; cross-section limits for fixed lifetime values.</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2000_GeV_exp_nominal">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.0 TeV; expected, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2000_GeV_exp_up">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.0 TeV; expected, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2000_GeV_exp_down">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.0 TeV; expected, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2000_GeV_obs_nominal">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.0 TeV; observed, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2000_GeV_obs_up">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.0 TeV; observed, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2000_GeV_obs_down">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.0 TeV; observed, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2200_GeV_exp_nominal">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.2 TeV; expected, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2200_GeV_exp_up">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.2 TeV; expected, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2200_GeV_exp_down">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.2 TeV; expected, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2200_GeV_obs_nominal">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.2 TeV; observed, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2200_GeV_obs_up">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.2 TeV; observed, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mgluino_2200_GeV_obs_down">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{g}$)=2.2 TeV; observed, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mchi0_50_GeV_exp_nominal">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{\chi}^{0}$)=0.1 TeV; expected, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mchi0_50_GeV_exp_up">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{\chi}^{0}$)=0.1 TeV; expected, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mchi0_50_GeV_exp_down">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{\chi}^{0}$)=0.1 TeV; expected, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mchi0_50_GeV_obs_nominal">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{\chi}^{0}$)=0.1 TeV; observed, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mchi0_50_GeV_obs_up">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{\chi}^{0}$)=0.1 TeV; observed, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mchi0_50_GeV_obs_down">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{\chi}^{0}$)=0.1 TeV; observed, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mchi0_450_GeV_exp_nominal">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{\chi}^{0}$)=0.5 TeV; expected, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mchi0_450_GeV_exp_up">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{\chi}^{0}$)=0.5 TeV; expected, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mchi0_450_GeV_exp_down">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{\chi}^{0}$)=0.5 TeV; expected, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mchi0_450_GeV_obs_nominal">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{\chi}^{0}$)=0.5 TeV; observed, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mchi0_450_GeV_obs_up">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{\chi}^{0}$)=0.5 TeV; observed, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_mchi0_450_GeV_obs_down">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{\chi}^{0}$)=0.5 TeV; observed, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_0p01_ns_exp_nominal">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=0.01 ns; expected, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_0p01_ns_exp_up">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=0.01 ns; expected, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_0p01_ns_exp_down">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=0.01 ns; expected, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_0p01_ns_obs_nominal">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=0.01 ns; observed, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_0p01_ns_obs_up">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=0.01 ns; observed, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_0p01_ns_obs_down">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=0.01 ns; observed, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_0p1_ns_exp_nominal">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=0.10 ns; expected, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_0p1_ns_exp_up">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=0.10 ns; expected, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_0p1_ns_exp_down">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=0.10 ns; expected, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_0p1_ns_obs_nominal">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=0.10 ns; observed, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_0p1_ns_obs_up">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=0.10 ns; observed, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_0p1_ns_obs_down">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=0.10 ns; observed, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_1_ns_exp_nominal">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=1.00 ns; expected, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_1_ns_exp_up">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=1.00 ns; expected, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_1_ns_exp_down">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=1.00 ns; expected, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_1_ns_obs_nominal">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=1.00 ns; observed, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_1_ns_obs_up">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=1.00 ns; observed, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_1_ns_obs_down">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=1.00 ns; observed, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_10_ns_exp_nominal">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=10.00 ns; expected, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_10_ns_exp_up">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=10.00 ns; expected, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_10_ns_exp_down">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=10.00 ns; expected, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_10_ns_obs_nominal">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=10.00 ns; observed, nominal</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_10_ns_obs_up">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=10.00 ns; observed, $+1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_strong_tau_10_ns_obs_down">Strong RPV signal, $\tau$=10.00 ns; observed, $-1\sigma$</a> <a href="?table=excl_xsec_strong_chi0_1250">Strong RPV signal, m($\tilde{\chi}^0_1$)=1.25 TeV; cross-section limits for fixed lifetime values.</a> <br/><b>Reinterpretation Material:</b> See the attached resource (purple button on the left) or directly <a href="https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/SUSY-2016-08/hepdata_info.pdf">this link</a> for information about acceptance definition and about how to use the efficiency histograms below. SLHA files are also available in the reource page of this HEPData record. <a href="?table=acceptance_highpt_strong"> Acceptance cutflow, High-pT SR, Strong production.</a> <a href="?table=acceptance_trackless_ewk"> Acceptance cutflow, Trackless SR, EWK production.</a> <a href="?table=acceptance_trackless_ewk_hf"> Acceptance cutflow, Trackless SR, EWK production with heavy-flavor.</a> <a href="?table=acceptance_highpt_ewk_hf"> Acceptance cutflow, Trackless SR, EWK production with heavy-flavor.</a> <a href="?table=event_efficiency_HighPt_R_1150_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R < 1150 mm</a> <a href="?table=event_efficiency_HighPt_R_1150_3870_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm</a> <a href="?table=event_efficiency_HighPt_R_3870_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R > 3870 mm</a> <a href="?table=event_efficiency_Trackless_R_1150_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R < 1150 mm</a> <a href="?table=event_efficiency_Trackless_R_1150_3870_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm</a> <a href="?table=event_efficiency_Trackless_R_3870_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R > 3870 mm</a> <a href="?table=vertex_efficiency_R_22_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R < 22 mm</a> <a href="?table=vertex_efficiency_R_22_25_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [22, 25] mm</a> <a href="?table=vertex_efficiency_R_25_29_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [25, 29] mm</a> <a href="?table=vertex_efficiency_R_29_38_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [29, 38] mm</a> <a href="?table=vertex_efficiency_R_38_46_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [38, 46] mm</a> <a href="?table=vertex_efficiency_R_46_73_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [46, 73] mm</a> <a href="?table=vertex_efficiency_R_73_84_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [73, 84] mm</a> <a href="?table=vertex_efficiency_R_84_111_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [84, 111] mm</a> <a href="?table=vertex_efficiency_R_111_120_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [111, 120] mm</a> <a href="?table=vertex_efficiency_R_120_145_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [120, 145] mm</a> <a href="?table=vertex_efficiency_R_145_180_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [145, 180] mm</a> <a href="?table=vertex_efficiency_R_180_300_mm">Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [180, 300] mm</a> <br/><b>Cutflow Tables:</b> <a href="?table=cutflow_highpt_strong"> Cutflow (Acceptance x Efficiency), High-pT SR, Strong production.</a> <a href="?table=cutflow_trackless_ewk"> Cutflow (Acceptance x Efficiency), Trackless SR, EWK production.</a> <a href="?table=cutflow_trackless_ewk_hf"> Cutflow (Acceptance x Efficiency), Trackless SR, EWK production with heavy-flavor quarks.</a> <a href="?table=cutflow_highpt_ewk_hf"> Cutflow (Acceptance x Efficiency), High-pT SR, EWK production with heavy-flavor quarks.</a>
Validation of background estimate in validation regions for the High-pT jet selections
Validation of background estimate in validation regions for the Trackless jet selections
Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the High-pT jet SR for observed data events
Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the High-pT jet SR for expected signal events in the strong gluino pair pair production model with m(gluino)=1.8 TeV, m(chi0)=0.2 TeV, tau(chi0)=0.1 ns
Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the Trackless jet SR for observed data events
Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the Trackless jet SR for expected signal events in the electroweak pair production model
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV
Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the electroweak pair production model.
Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns
Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the strong gluino pair production models and m($ ilde{\chi}^0_1$)=1.25 TeV
Acceptance cutflow for the High-pT SR for representative points in the strong gluino pair production model. See additional resources for more information.
Acceptance cutflow for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model. See additional resources for more information.
Acceptance cutflow for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks final state. See additional resources for more information.
Acceptance cutflow for the High-pT SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks final state. See additional resources for more information.
Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R < 1150 mm
Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R > 3870 mm
Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R < 1150 mm
Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R > 3870 mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R < 22 mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [22, 25] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [25, 29] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [29, 38] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [38, 46] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [46, 73] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [73, 84] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [84, 111] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [111, 120] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [120, 145] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [145, 180] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [180, 300] mm
Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the High-pT SR for representative points in the strong gluino pair production model. See additional resources for more information.
Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model. See additional resources for more information.
Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks. See additional resources for more information.
Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the High-pT SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks. See additional resources for more information.
This paper presents a search for dark matter, $\chi$, using events with a single top quark and an energetic $W$ boson. The analysis is based on proton-proton collision data collected with the ATLAS experiment at $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV during LHC Run 2 (2015-2018), corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The search considers final states with zero or one charged lepton (electron or muon), at least one $b$-jet and large missing transverse momentum. In addition, a result from a previous search considering two-charged-lepton final states is included in the interpretation of the results. The data are found to be in good agreement with the Standard Model predictions and the results are interpreted in terms of 95% confidence-level exclusion limits in the context of a class of dark matter models involving an extended two-Higgs-doublet sector together with a pseudoscalar mediator particle. The search is particularly sensitive to on-shell production of the charged Higgs boson state, $H^{\pm}$, arising from the two-Higgs-doublet mixing, and its semi-invisible decays via the mediator particle, $a$: $H^{\pm} \rightarrow W^\pm a (\rightarrow \chi\chi)$. Signal models with $H^{\pm}$ masses up to 1.5 TeV and $a$ masses up to 350 GeV are excluded assuming a tan$\beta$ value of 1. For masses of $a$ of 150 (250) GeV, tan$\beta$ values up to 2 are excluded for $H^{\pm}$ masses between 200 (400) GeV and 1.5 TeV. Signals with tan$\beta$ values between 20 and 30 are excluded for $H^{\pm}$ masses between 500 and 800 GeV.
<b>- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - -</b> <br><br> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=highst_mamh_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_mamh_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_mhtb_lowma_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_mhtb_lowma_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_mhtb_highma_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_mhtb_highma_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_mamh_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_mamh_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_mhtb_lowma_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_mhtb_lowma_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_mhtb_highma_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_mhtb_highma_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_mamh_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_mamh_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_mhtb_lowma_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_mhtb_lowma_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_mhtb_highma_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_mhtb_highma_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_mamh_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_mamh_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_mhtb_lowma_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_mhtb_lowma_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_mhtb_highma_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_mhtb_highma_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_mamh_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_mamh_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_mhtb_lowma_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_mhtb_lowma_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_mhtb_highma_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_mhtb_highma_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_mamh_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_mamh_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_mhtb_lowma_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_mhtb_lowma_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_mhtb_highma_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_mamh_obs">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_mamh_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_mhtb_lowma_obs">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_mhtb_lowma_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_mhtb_highma_obs">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_mhtb_highma_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_lowst_mamh_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_lowst_mhtb_lowma_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_lowst_mhtb_highma_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_dmtt_mamh_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_dmtt_mamh_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=highst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_dmtt_mamh_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_dmtt_mamh_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_obs">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=lowst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_exp">Combined sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mamh_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mamh_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mamh_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mamh_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_obs">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=0LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_exp">0L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mamh_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mamh_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_highst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mamh_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mamh_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_obs">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=1LBoosted_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_exp">1L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_dmtt_mamh_obs">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_dmtt_mamh_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_obs">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_obs">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_highst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.7 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_lowst_dmtt_mamh_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_obs">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_lowma_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 150 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_obs">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=2L_lowst_dmtt_mhtb_highma_exp">2L channel sin$\theta$ = 0.35 $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ ($m_{a}$ = 250 GeV) exclusion contour using DMtW+DMtt signals (Exp.)</a> </ul> <b>Upper limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM(sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM +tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM(sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM +tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_Comb_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from combined (0L+1L+2L) fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM(sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM +tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM(sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM +tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_0L_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 0L individual fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p7">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM(sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM +tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p7_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.7) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p35">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mamH_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM(sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtblow_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM +tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the low $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> <li><a href="?table=mHtbhigh_xSecUpperLimit_1L_st0p35_DMtt">Observed upper limit on the 2HDM+a tW+DM + tt+DM (sin$\theta$ = 0.35) cross-sections from 1L individual fit in the high $m_a$ $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane.</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=SR0L_mwtagged">0L region m(b1,W-tagged)</a> <li><a href="?table=SR0L_mtbmet">0L region m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b,E_{\mathrm{T}^{\mathrm{miss}}}}}</a> <li><a href="?table=SR0L_nwtagged">0L region N_{\mathrm{W-tagged}}</a> <li><a href="?table=SR1L_Had_mbj">1L hadronic top $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$</a> <li><a href="?table=SR1L_Lep_mbj">1L leptonic top $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$</a> <li><a href="?table=SR1L_Lep_nwtaggged">1L leptonic top region N_{\mathrm{W-tagged}}</a> </ul> <b>Cut flows:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SR0L">Cutflow of 4 signal points in the 0L regions.</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SR1L_Had">Cutflow of 4 signal points in the 1L hadronic top regions.</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SR1L_Lep">Cutflow of 4 signal points in the 1L leptonic top region.</a> </ul> <b>Acceptance and efficiencies:</b> <ul> <li> <b>highst_grid1_0L:</b> <a href="?table=highst_grid1_Acc_0L">Acceptance table of the 0L SRs in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 1.</a> <a href="?table=highst_grid1_Eff_0L">Efficiency table of the 0L SRs in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 1.</a> <li> <b>highst_grid2_0L:</b> <a href="?table=highst_grid2_Acc_0L">Acceptance table of the 0L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 150 GeV.</a> <a href="?table=highst_grid2_Eff_0L">Efficiency table of the 0L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 150 GeV.</a> <li> <b>highst_grid3_0L:</b> <a href="?table=highst_grid3_Acc_0L">Acceptance table of the 0L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 250 GeV.</a> <a href="?table=highst_grid3_Eff_0L">Efficiency table of the 0L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 250 GeV.</a> <li> <b>highst_grid1_1L:</b> <a href="?table=highst_grid1_Acc_1L">Acceptance table of the 1L SRs in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 1.</a> <a href="?table=highst_grid1_Eff_1L">Efficiency table of the 1L SRs in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 1.</a> <li> <b>highst_grid2_1L:</b> <a href="?table=highst_grid2_Acc_1L">Acceptance table of the 1L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 150 GeV.</a> <a href="?table=highst_grid2_Eff_1L">Efficiency table of the 1L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 150 GeV.</a> <li> <b>highst_grid3_1L:</b> <a href="?table=highst_grid3_Acc_1L">Acceptance table of the 1L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 250 GeV.</a> <a href="?table=highst_grid3_Eff_1L">Efficiency table of the 1L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.7, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 250 GeV.</a> <li> <b>lowst_grid1_0L:</b> <a href="?table=lowst_grid1_Acc_0L">Acceptance table of the 0L SRs in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 1.</a> <a href="?table=lowst_grid1_Eff_0L">Efficiency table of the 0L SRs in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 1.</a> <li> <b>lowst_grid2_0L:</b> <a href="?table=lowst_grid2_Acc_0L">Acceptance table of the 0L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 150 GeV.</a> <a href="?table=lowst_grid2_Eff_0L">Efficiency table of the 0L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 150 GeV.</a> <li> <b>lowst_grid3_0L:</b> <a href="?table=lowst_grid3_Acc_0L">Acceptance table of the 0L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 250 GeV.</a> <a href="?table=lowst_grid3_Eff_0L">Efficiency table of the 0L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 250 GeV.</a> <li> <b>lowst_grid1_1L:</b> <a href="?table=lowst_grid1_Acc_1L">Acceptance table of the 1L SRs in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 1.</a> <a href="?table=lowst_grid1_Eff_1L">Efficiency table of the 1L SRs in the $m_a$-$m_{H^{\pm}}$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and tan$\beta$ = 1.</a> <li> <b>lowst_grid2_1L:</b> <a href="?table=lowst_grid2_Acc_1L">Acceptance table of the 1L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 150 GeV.</a> <a href="?table=lowst_grid2_Eff_1L">Efficiency table of the 1L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 150 GeV.</a> <li> <b>lowst_grid3_1L:</b> <a href="?table=lowst_grid3_Acc_1L">Acceptance table of the 1L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 250 GeV.</a> <a href="?table=lowst_grid3_Eff_1L">Efficiency table of the 1L SRs in the $m_{H^{\pm}}$-tan$\beta$ plane for 2HDM+a signals with sin$\theta$ = 0.35, $m_{\chi}$ = 10 GeV and $m_a$ = 250 GeV.</a> </ul> <b>Truth Code snippets</b> are available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 0L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 1L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_a$ vs. $m_{H^{\pm}}$ and assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 150 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ and assuming $m_a$ = 250 $\mathrm{GeV}$, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered in this contour. These exclusion contours are derived using the 2L channel only.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.7$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Only signals simulating the tW+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_a$ vs. $ m_{H^{\pm}}$ signal grid assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 150 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $m_{H^{\pm}}$ vs. tan$\beta$ signal grid assuming $m_a$ = 250 GeV, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} = 10 \mathrm{GeV}$, $g_{\chi} = 1$ and sin$\theta = 0.35$. Signals simulating the tW+DM + tt+DM final states are considered. Upper limits with large $\mu_{\mathrm{sig}}$ for the observed limit are capped at 500.
The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{W-tagged}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{b,E_{\mathrm{T}^{\mathrm{miss}}}}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $N_{\mathrm{W-tagged}}$ in the 0L inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the hadronic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the leptonic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $m_{\mathrm{b1},\mathrm{\cancel{b1}}}$ in the leptonic top inclusive signal region. For each bin yields for the data and total SM prediction are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the total uncertainty, including the MC statistical uncertainty, detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 0L regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 1L leptonic top regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\mathrm{H^{\pm}}}, \it{m}_{a}, tan\beta, sin\theta )=$ (500,100,1,0.7) , (800,150,20,0.7), (600,250,30,0.7), (1000,400,1,0.7) in 1L hadronic top regions. Results are shown including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$.
Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.7. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 0L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_a$--m$_{H^{\pm}}$ assuming tan$\beta$ = 1, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 150 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
Signal acceptance in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in the 1L region for 2HDM+a model DM signals on the plane defined by m$_{H^{\pm}}$--tan$\beta$ assuming m$_a$ = 250 GeV, m$_{\chi}$= 10 GeV and sin$\theta$ = 0.35. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{2}$
This paper presents a statistical combination of searches targeting final states with two top quarks and invisible particles, characterised by the presence of zero, one or two leptons, at least one jet originating from a $b$-quark and missing transverse momentum. The analyses are searches for phenomena beyond the Standard Model consistent with the direct production of dark matter in $pp$ collisions at the LHC, using 139 fb$^{-\text{1}}$ of data collected with the ATLAS detector at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The results are interpreted in terms of simplified dark matter models with a spin-0 scalar or pseudoscalar mediator particle. In addition, the results are interpreted in terms of upper limits on the Higgs boson invisible branching ratio, where the Higgs boson is produced according to the Standard Model in association with a pair of top quarks. For scalar (pseudoscalar) dark matter models, with all couplings set to unity, the statistical combination extends the mass range excluded by the best of the individual channels by 50 (25) GeV, excluding mediator masses up to 370 GeV. In addition, the statistical combination improves the expected coupling exclusion reach by 14% (24%), assuming a scalar (pseudoscalar) mediator mass of 10 GeV. An upper limit on the Higgs boson invisible branching ratio of 0.38 (0.30$^{+\text{0.13}}_{-\text{0.09}}$) is observed (expected) at 95% confidence level.
Post-fit signal region yields for the tt0L-high and the tt0L-low analyses. The bottom panel shows the statistical significance of the difference between the SM prediction and the observed data in each region. '$t\bar{t}$ (other)' represents $t\bar{t}$ events without extra jets or events with extra light-flavour jets. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The total uncertainty in the SM expectation is represented with hatched bands and the expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines.
Representative fit distribution in the signal region for the tt1L analysis: each bin of such distribution corresponds to a single SR included in the fit. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$, $tWZ$ and $t\bar{t}$ (semileptonic) processes. The total uncertainty in the SM expectation is represented with hatched bands and the expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines.
Representative fit distribution in the same flavour leptons signal region for the tt2L analysis: each bin of such distribution, starting from the red arrow, corresponds to a single SR included in the fit. 'FNP' includes the contribution from fake/non-prompt lepton background arising from jets (mainly $\pi/K$, heavy-flavour hadron decays and photon conversion) misidentified as leptons, estimated in a purely data-driven way. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The total uncertainty in the SM expectation is represented with hatched bands and the expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines.
Summary of the total uncertainty in the background prediction for each SR of the tt0L-low, tt0L-high, tt1L and tt2L analysis channels in the statistical combination. Their dominant contributions are indicated by individual lines. Individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(\phi)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Associated production of DM with both single top quarks ($tW$ and $tj$ channels) and top quark pairs is considered. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for each individual channel and their statistical combination.
Exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudoscalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(a)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Associated production of DM with both single top quarks ($tW$ and $tj$ channels) and top quark pairs is considered. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for each individual channel and their statistical combination.
$E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution in SR0X for the tt0L-low analysis. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown after the profile likelihood simultaneous fit to all tt0L-low CRs, with the hatched bands representing the total uncertainty. The category '$t\bar{t}$ (other)' represents $t\bar{t}$ events without extra jets or events with extra light-flavour jets. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines. The overflow events are included in the last bin. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the hatched area representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction and the red arrows marking data outside the vertical-axis range.
$E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution in SRWX for the tt0L-low analysis. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown after the profile likelihood simultaneous fit to all tt0L-low CRs, with the hatched bands representing the total uncertainty. The category '$t\bar{t}$ (other)' represents $t\bar{t}$ events without extra jets or events with extra light-flavour jets. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines. The overflow events are included in the last bin. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the hatched area representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction and the red arrows marking data outside the vertical-axis range.
$E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ distribution in SRTX for the tt0L-low analysis. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown after the profile likelihood simultaneous fit to all tt0L-low CRs, with the hatched bands representing the total uncertainty. The category '$t\bar{t}$ (other)' represents $t\bar{t}$ events without extra jets or events with extra light-flavour jets. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines. The overflow events are included in the last bin. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the hatched area representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction and the red arrows marking data outside the vertical-axis range.
Exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(\phi)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Associated production of DM with both single top quarks ($tW$ and $tj$ channels) and top quark pairs is considered. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the nominal cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for the tt0L-high and tt0L-low analyses and their statistical combination.
Exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudoscalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(a)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Associated production of DM with both single top quarks ($tW$ and $tj$ channels) and top quark pairs is considered. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the nominal cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for the tt0L-high and tt0L-low analyses and their statistical combination.
Exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(\phi)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Only associated production of DM with top quark pairs is considered for this interpretation. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for each individual channel and their statistical combination.
Exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudoscalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(a)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Only associated production of DM with top quark pairs is considered for this interpretation. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for each individual channel and their statistical combination.
Exclusion limits for colour-neutral scalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(\phi)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Only associated production of DM with top quark pairs is considered for this interpretation. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the nominal cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for the tt0L-high and tt0L-low analyses and their statistical combination.
Exclusion limits for colour-neutral pseudoscalar mediator dark matter models as a function of the mediator mass $m(a)$ for a DM mass $m_{\chi} = 1$ GeV. Only associated production of DM with top quark pairs is considered for this interpretation. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross section to the nominal cross section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines show the observed (expected) exclusion limits for the tt0L-high and tt0L-low analyses and their statistical combination.
Representative fit distribution in the different flavour leptons signal region for the tt2L analysis: each bin of such distribution, starting from the red arrow, corresponds to a single SR included in the fit. 'FNP' includes the contribution from fake/non-prompt lepton background arising from jets (mainly $\pi/K$, heavy-flavour hadron decays and photon conversion) misidentified as leptons, estimated in a purely data-driven way. 'Other' includes contributions from $t\bar{t}W$, $tZ$ and $tWZ$ processes. The total uncertainty in the SM expectation is represented with hatched bands and the expected distributions for selected signal models are shown as dashed lines.
Signal acceptance in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$t\bar{t}$ model, defined as the number of accepted events at generator level in signal Monte Carlo simulation divided by the total number of events in the sample.
Signal acceptance in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$tW$ model, defined as the number of accepted events at generator level in signal Monte Carlo simulation divided by the total number of events in the sample.
Signal acceptance in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$tj$ model, defined as the number of accepted events at generator level in signal Monte Carlo simulation divided by the total number of events in the sample.
Signal efficiency in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$t\bar{t}$ model, defined as the number of selected reconstructed events divided by the acceptance.
Signal efficiency in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$tW$ model, defined as the number of selected reconstructed events divided by the acceptance.
Signal efficiency in SR0X, SRWX and SRTX for simplified DM+$tj$ model, defined as the number of selected reconstructed events divided by the acceptance.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 2045000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 2045000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 2045000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 400000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 400000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$t\bar{t}$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 400000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 120000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 120000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 120000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 100000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 100000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tW$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 100000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 169000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 169000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(\phi, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 169000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SR0X. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 140000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRWX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 140000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point DM+$tj$ $m(a, \chi) = (10, 1)$ GeV in signal region SRTX. The column labelled 'weighted' shows the event yield including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns the 'weighted' numbers in the first and the second row, labelled 'Total' and 'Filtered', which correspond to $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma$ and $\mathcal{L}\cdot\sigma\cdot\epsilon$ expected, respectively. The 'Skim' selection requires the $p_{\text{T}}$ of the leading four jets to be above (80, 60, 40, 40) GeV, the missing transverse momentum $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}} > 140$ GeV, the missing momentum significance $\mathcal{S} > 8$, $\Delta\phi_{\min}(\vec{p}_{\text{T,1-4}},\vec{p}_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}) > 0.4$ and a lepton veto. The 'Orthogonalisation' selection is defined in the main body. In total 140000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column 'Unweighted yield' collecting the numbers after each cut.
A search for diphoton resonances in the mass range between 10 and 70 GeV with the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is presented. The analysis is based on $pp$ collision data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$ at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV recorded from 2015 to 2018. Previous searches for diphoton resonances at the LHC have explored masses down to 65 GeV, finding no evidence of new particles. This search exploits the particular kinematics of events with pairs of closely spaced photons reconstructed in the detector, allowing examination of invariant masses down to 10 GeV. The presented strategy covers a region previously unexplored at hadron colliders because of the experimental challenges of recording low-energy photons and estimating the backgrounds. No significant excess is observed and the reported limits provide the strongest bound on promptly decaying axion-like particles coupling to gluons and photons for masses between 10 and 70 GeV.
The expected and observed upper limits at 95\% CL on the fiducial cross-section times branching ratio to two photons of a narrow-width ($\Gamma_{X}$ = 4 MeV) scalar resonance as a function of its mass $m_{X}$.
Diphoton invariant mass in the signal region using a 0.1 GeV binning.
Parametrization of the $C_{X}$ factor, defined as the ratio between the number of reconstructed signal events passing the analysis cuts and the number of signal events at the particle level generated within the fiducial volume, as function of $m_{X}$ obtained from the narrow width simulated signal samples produced in gluon fusion.
Parametrization of the $A_{X}$ factor, defined as the fraction of diphoton resonances satisfying the fiducial acceptance at the particle level, as function of $m_{X}$ obtained from the narrow width simulated signal samples produced in gluon fusion.
The correction factor, $C_{X}$, defined as the ratio between the number of reconstructed signal events passing the analysis cuts and the number of signal events at the particle level generated within the fiducial volume, and acceptance correction factor, $A_{X}$, defined as the fraction of diphoton resonances satisfying the fiducial acceptance at the particle level. Both are computed for NWA spin-0 models as a function of $m_{X}$.
Effect of event selections on a scalar MC signal sample generated for $m_{X}$ = 15 GeV and on the data. For the MC sample, the efficiencies are shown after applying event weights and a truth level filter that requires two photons with $p^{\gamma\gamma}_{T}>40$ GeV; for the data, the absolute yields are shown. The initial yields for data include a trigger preselection that is the OR of a list of single photon and diphoton triggers. The "2 $loose$ photons" step includes the kinematic acceptance cuts.
Parameterization of the Double Sided Crystal Ball function parameters describing the scalar mass resolution model as a function of $m_{X}$ [GeV].
A search for the electroweak production of pairs of charged sleptons or charginos decaying into two-lepton final states with missing transverse momentum is presented. Two simplified models of $R$-parity-conserving supersymmetry are considered: direct pair-production of sleptons ($\tilde{\ell}\tilde{\ell}$), with each decaying into a charged lepton and a $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ neutralino, and direct pair-production of the lightest charginos $(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^\mp)$, with each decaying into a $W$-boson and a $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) is assumed to be the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). The analyses target the experimentally challenging mass regions where $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm)-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ are close to the $W$-boson mass (`moderately compressed' regions). The search uses 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV proton-proton collisions recorded by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. No significant excesses over the expected background are observed. Exclusion limits on the simplified models under study are reported in the ($\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) and ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) mass planes at 95% confidence level (CL). Sleptons with masses up to 150 GeV are excluded at 95% CL for the case of a mass-splitting between sleptons and the LSP of 50 GeV. Chargino masses up to 140 GeV are excluded at 95% CL for the case of a mass-splitting between the chargino and the LSP down to about 100 GeV.
<b>- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - -</b> <b>Title: </b><em>Search for direct pair production of sleptons and charginos decaying to two leptons and neutralinos with mass splittings near the $W$ boson mass in $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV $pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector</em> <b>Paper website:</b> <a href="https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/SUSY-2019-02/">SUSY-2019-02</a> <b>Exclusion contours</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal>Combined Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_up>Combined Observed Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_down>Combined Observed Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal>Combined Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_up>Combined Expected Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_down>Combined Expected Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_dM>Combined Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_up_dM>Combined Observed Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_down_dM>Combined Observed Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_dM>Combined Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_up_dM>Combined Expected Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_down_dM>Combined Expected Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_SR0j>Combined Observed Nominal SR-0j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_SR0j>Combined Expected Nominal SR-0j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_SR1j>Combined Observed Nominal SR-1j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_SR1j>Combined Expected Nominal SR-1j</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_nominal>Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_up>Observed Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_down>Observed Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_nominal_dM>Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_up_dM>Observed Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_down_dM>Observed Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Down $(\Delta m)$</a> </ul> <b>Upper Limits</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=UL_slep>ULs</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=UL_c1c1>ULs</a> </ul> <b>Pull Plots</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=pullplot_slep>SRs summary plot</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=pullplot_c1c1>SRs summary plot</a> </ul> <b>Cutflows</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=Cutflow_slep_SR0j>Towards SR-0J</a> <a href=?table=Cutflow_slep_SR1j>Towards SR-1J</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=Cutflow_SRs>Towards SRs</a> </ul> <b>Acceptance and Efficiencies</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_100_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_100_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_110_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_110_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_120_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_120_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_130_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_130_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_100_105>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_100_105>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_105_110>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_105_110>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_110_115>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_110_115>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_115_120>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_115_120>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_120_125>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_125_130>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_130_140>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_130_140>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_140_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_140_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_100_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_100_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_110_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_110_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_120_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_120_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_130_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_130_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_100_105>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_100_105>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_105_110>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_105_110>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_110_115>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_110_115>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_115_120>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_115_120>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_120_125>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_125_130>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_130_140>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_130_140>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_140_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_140_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_1_SF_77_1>SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_1_SF_77_1>SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_82_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_82_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_83_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_83_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_84_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_84_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_85_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_85_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_8125>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,8125]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_8125>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,8125]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8125_815>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,815]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8125_815>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,815]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_815_8175>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,8175]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_815_8175>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,8175]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8175_82>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,82]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8175_82>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,82]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_82_8225>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,8225]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_82_8225>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,8225]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8225_825>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,825]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8225_825>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,825]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_825_8275>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,8275]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_825_8275>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,8275]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8275_83>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,83]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8275_83>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,83]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_83_8325>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,8325]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_83_8325>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,8325]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8325_835>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,835]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8325_835>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,835]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_835_8375>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,8375]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_835_8375>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,8375]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8375_84>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,84]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8375_84>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,84]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_84_845>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,845]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_84_845>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,845]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_845_85>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,85]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_845_85>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,85]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_85_86>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,86]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_85_86>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,86]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_86_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_86_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_77_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_77_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_78_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_78_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_79_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_79_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_80_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_80_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_77_775>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_77_775>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_775_78>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_775_78>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_78_785>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_78_785>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_785_79>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_785_79>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_79_795>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_79_795>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_795_80>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_795_80>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_80_81>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_80_81>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_81_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_81_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Efficiency</a></ul> <b>Truth Code snippets</b>, <b>SLHA</b> and <b>machine learning</b> files are available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
Cutflow table for the slepton signal sample with $m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = (100,70)$ GeV, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in [100,\infty)$ region. The yields include the process cross section and are weighted to the 139 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity. 246000 events were generated for the sample.
Cutflow table for the slepton signal sample with $m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = (100,70)$ GeV, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in [100,\infty)$ region. The yields include the process cross section and are weighted to the 139 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity. 246000 events were generated for the sample.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models, with observed upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) overlaid, for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
The upper panel shows the observed number of events in each of the binned SRs defined in Table 3, together with the expected SM backgrounds obtained after applying the efficiency correction method to compute the number of expected FSB events. `Others' include the non-dominant background sources, e.g. $t \bar{t}$+$V$, Higgs boson and Drell--Yan events. The uncertainty band includes systematic and statistical errors from all sources. The distributions of two signal points with mass splittings $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = 30$ GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = 50$ GeV are overlaid. The lower panel shows the significance as defined in Ref. [115].
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,0.8125]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,0.8125]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,0.815]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,0.815]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,0.8175]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,0.8175]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,0.82]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,0.82]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,0.8225]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,0.8225]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,0.825]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,0.825]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,0.8275]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,0.8275]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,0.83]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,0.83]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,0.8325]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,0.8325]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,0.835]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,0.835]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,0.8375]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,0.8375]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,0.84]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,0.84]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,0.845]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,0.845]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,0.85]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,0.85]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,0.86]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,0.86]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
Cutflow table for the chargino signal sample with $m\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0=(125,25)$ GeV, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in (0.77,1]$ and SR-DF BDT-signal$\in (0.81,1]$ regions. The yields include the process cross-section and are weighted to the 139 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity. 170000 events were generated for the sample.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models, with observed upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) overlaid, for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
The upper panel shows the observed number of events in the SRs defined in Table 3, together with the expected SM backgrounds obtained after the background fit in the CRs. `Others' include the non-dominant background sources, e.g.$t \bar{t}$+$V$, Higgs boson and Drell--Yan events. The uncertainty band includes systematic and statistical errors from all sources. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison. The lower panel shows the significance as defined in Ref. [115].
A search for new phenomena has been performed in final states with at least one isolated high-momentum photon, jets and missing transverse momentum in proton--proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV. The data, collected by the ATLAS experiment at the CERN LHC, correspond to an integrated luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$. The experimental results are interpreted in a supersymmetric model in which pair-produced gluinos decay into neutralinos, which in turn decay into a gravitino, at least one photon, and jets. No significant deviations from the predictions of the Standard Model are observed. Upper limits are set on the visible cross section due to physics beyond the Standard Model, and lower limits are set on the masses of the gluinos and neutralinos, all at 95% confidence level. Visible cross sections greater than 0.022 fb are excluded and pair-produced gluinos with masses up to 2200 GeV are excluded for most of the NLSP masses investigated.
The observed and expected (post-fit) yields in the control and validation regions. The lower panel shows the difference in standard deviations between the observed and expected yields, considering both the systematic and statistical uncertainties on the background expectation.
Observed (points with error bars) and expected background (solid histograms) distributions for $E_{T}^{miss}$ in the signal region (a) SRL, (b) SRM and (c) SRH after the background-only fit applied to the CRs. The predicted signal distributions for the two models with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV (SRL), 1050 GeV (SRM) or 1950 GeV (SRH) are also shown for comparison. The uncertainties in the SM background are only statistical.
Observed (points with error bars) and expected background (solid histograms) distributions for $E_{T}^{miss}$ in the signal region (a) SRL, (b) SRM and (c) SRH after the background-only fit applied to the CRs. The predicted signal distributions for the two models with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV (SRL), 1050 GeV (SRM) or 1950 GeV (SRH) are also shown for comparison. The uncertainties in the SM background are only statistical.
Observed (points with error bars) and expected background (solid histograms) distributions for $E_{T}^{miss}$ in the signal region (a) SRL, (b) SRM and (c) SRH after the background-only fit applied to the CRs. The predicted signal distributions for the two models with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV (SRL), 1050 GeV (SRM) or 1950 GeV (SRH) are also shown for comparison. The uncertainties in the SM background are only statistical.
Observed and expected exclusion limit in the gluino-neutralino mass plane at 95% CL combined using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point, for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $139~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, for $\gamma/Z$ (a) and $\gamma/h$ (b) signal models. The black solid line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the 1$\sigma$ exclusions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves, the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties. For each point in the higgsino-bino parameter space, the labels indicate the best-expected signal region, where L, M and H mean SRL, SRM and SRH, respectively.
Observed and expected exclusion limit in the gluino-neutralino mass plane at 95% CL combined using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point, for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $139~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, for $\gamma/Z$ (a) and $\gamma/h$ (b) signal models. The black solid line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the 1$\sigma$ exclusions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves, the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties. For each point in the higgsino-bino parameter space, the labels indicate the best-expected signal region, where L, M and H mean SRL, SRM and SRH, respectively.
Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).
Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).
Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).
Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).
Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).
Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).
Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).
Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).
Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).
Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).
Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).
Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).
Cutflow for the SRL selection, for two relevant signal points for both $\gamma/Z$ and $\gamma/h$ models, where the gluinos have mass of 2000 GeV and the neutralinos have a mass of 250 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.
Cutflow for the SRM selection, for two relevant signal points for both $\gamma/Z$ and $\gamma/h$ models, where the gluinos have mass of 2000 GeV and the neutralinos have a mass of 1050 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.
Cutflow for the SRH selection, for two relevant signal points for both $\gamma/Z$ and $\gamma/h$ models, where the gluinos have mass of 2000 GeV and the neutralinos have a mass of 1950 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.
Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.
Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.
Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.
Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.
Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.
Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.
Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.
Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.
Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.
Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.
Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.
Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.
The associated production of a Higgs boson and a top-quark pair is measured in events characterised by the presence of one or two electrons or muons. The Higgs boson decay into a $b$-quark pair is used. The analysed data, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, were collected in proton-proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider between 2015 and 2018 at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV. The measured signal strength, defined as the ratio of the measured signal yield to that predicted by the Standard Model, is $0.35^{+0.36}_{-0.34}$. This result is compatible with the Standard Model prediction and corresponds to an observed (expected) significance of 1.0 (2.7) standard deviations. The signal strength is also measured differentially in bins of the Higgs boson transverse momentum in the simplified template cross-section framework, including a bin for specially selected boosted Higgs bosons with transverse momentum above 300 GeV.
Comparison between data and prediction for the DNN $P(H)$ output for the Higgs boson candidate prior to any fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $300\le p_T^H<450$ GeV. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the DNN $P(H)$ output for the Higgs boson candidate prior to any fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $p_{{T}}^{H}\ge 450$ GeV. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Performance of the Higgs boson reconstruction algorithms. For each row of `truth' ${\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}$, the matrix shows (in percentages) the fraction of all Higgs boson candidates with reconstructed $p_T^H$ in the various bins of the dilepton (left), single-lepton resolved (middle) and boosted (right) channels.
Pre-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate $p_T^H$ for the dilepton $SR^{\geq 4j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations, except for the uncertainty in the $k({t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b})$ normalisation factor which is not defined pre-fit. The last bin includes the overflow.
Pre-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate $p_T^H$ for the single-lepton resolved $SR^{\geq 6j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations, except for the uncertainty in the $k({t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b})$ normalisation factor which is not defined pre-fit. The last bin includes the overflow.
Pre-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate $p_T^H$ for the single-lepton boosted ${{SR}_{{boosted}}}$ signal region. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations, except for the uncertainty in the $k({t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b})$ normalisation factor which is not defined pre-fit. The last bin includes the overflow.
Comparison of predicted and observed event yields in each of the control and signal regions in the dilepton channel after the fit to the data. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison of predicted and observed event yields in each of the control and signal regions in the single-lepton channels after the fit to the data. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the dilepton SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the dilepton SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $120\le p_T^H<200$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the dilepton SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $200\le p_T^H<300$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the dilepton SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $p_{{T}}^{H}\ge 300$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the single-lepton resolved SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the single-lepton resolved SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $120\le p_T^H<200$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the single-lepton resolved SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $200\le p_T^H<300$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the single-lepton resolved SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $300\le p_T^H<450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the single-lepton resolved SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $p_{{T}}^{H}\ge 450$ GeV (yield only). The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the single-lepton boosted SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $300\le p_T^H<450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the BDT discriminant in the single-lepton boosted SRs after the inclusive fit to the data for $p_{{T}}^{H}\ge 450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for ${\Delta R^{{avg}}_{bb}}$ after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton $CR^{5j}_{{\geq}4b\ lo}$ control region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).
Comparison between data and prediction for ${\Delta R^{{avg}}_{bb}}$ after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton $CR^{5j}_{{\geq}4b\ hi}$ control region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).
Post-fit yields of signal ($S$) and total background ($B$) as a function of $\log (S/B)$, compared with data. Final-discriminant bins in all dilepton and single-lepton analysis regions are combined into bins of $\log (S/B)$, with the signal normalised to the SM prediction used for the computation of $\log (S/B)$. The signal is then shown normalised to the best-fit value and the SM prediction. The lower frame reports the ratio of data to background, and this is compared with the expected ${t\bar {t}H}$-signal-plus-background yield divided by the background-only yield for the best-fit signal strength (solid red line) and the SM prediction (dashed orange line).
Comparison between data and prediction for the reconstruction BDT score for the Higgs boson candidate identified using Higgs boson information, after the inclusive fit to the data in the dilepton resolved channel for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the average $\Delta \eta $ between $b$-tagged jets, after the inclusive fit to the data in the dilepton resolved channel for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the likelihood discriminant, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton resolved channel for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the average $\Delta R$ for all possible combinations of $b$-tagged jet pairs, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton resolved channel for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the DNN $P(H)$ output for the Higgs boson candidate after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $300\le p_T^H<450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the DNN $P(H)$ output for the Higgs boson candidate after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $p_{{T}}^{H}\ge 450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate mass for the dilepton $SR^{\geq 4j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).
Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate mass for the single-lepton resolved $SR^{\geq 6j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).
Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate mass for the single-lepton boosted ${{SR}_{{boosted}}}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).
Fitted values of the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal strength parameter in the individual channels and in the inclusive signal-strength measurement.
Ranking of the 20 nuisance parameters with the largest post-fit impact on $\mu $ in the fit. Nuisance parameters corresponding to statistical uncertainties in the simulated event samples are not included. The empty blue rectangles correspond to the pre-fit impact on $\mu $ and the filled blue ones to the post-fit impact on $\mu $, both referring to the upper scale. The impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta \mu $, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu $ with the result of the fit when fixing the considered nuisance parameter to its best-fit value, $\hat{\theta }$, shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\pm \Delta \theta $ ($\pm \Delta \hat{\theta }$). The black points show the pulls of the nuisance parameters relative to their nominal values, $\theta _0$. These pulls and their relative post-fit errors, $\Delta \hat{\theta }/\Delta \theta $, refer to the lower scale. The `ljets' (`dilep') label refers to the single-lepton (dilepton) channel.
Pre-fit distribution of the number of jets in the dilepton $SR^{\geq 4j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the Standard Model expectation. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations, except the uncertainty in the $k({t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b})$ normalisation factor that is not defined pre-fit.
Pre-fit distribution of the number of jets in the single-lepton resolved $SR^{\geq 6j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the Standard Model expectation. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations, except the uncertainty in the $k({t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b})$ normalisation factor that is not defined pre-fit.
Pre-fit distribution of the number of jets in the single-lepton boosted ${{SR}_{{boosted}}}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the Standard Model expectation. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations, except the uncertainty in the $k({t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b})$ normalisation factor that is not defined pre-fit.
Post-fit distribution of the number of jets in the dilepton $SR^{\geq 4j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Post-fit distribution of the number of jets in the single-lepton resolved $SR^{\geq 6j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Post-fit distribution of the number of jets in the single-lepton boosted ${{SR}_{{boosted}}}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate $p_T^H$ for the dilepton $SR^{\geq 4j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The last bin includes the overflow.
Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate $p_T^H$ for the single-lepton resolved $SR^{\geq 6j}_{\geq 4b}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The last bin includes the overflow.
Post-fit distribution of the reconstructed Higgs boson candidate $p_T^H$ for the single-lepton boosted ${{SR}_{{boosted}}}$ signal region. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The last bin includes the overflow.
Signal-strength measurements in the individual STXS ${\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}$ bins, as well as the inclusive signal strength.
95% CL simplified template cross-section upper limits in the individual STXS ${\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}$ bins, as well as the inclusive limit. The observed limits are shown (solid black lines), together with the expected limits both in the background-only hypothesis (dotted black lines) and in the SM hypothesis (dotted red lines). In the case of the expected limits in the background-only hypothesis, one- and two-standard-deviation uncertainty bands are also shown. The hatched uncertainty bands correspond to the theory uncertainty in the fiducial cross-section prediction in each bin.
The ratios $S/B$ (black solid line, referring to the vertical axis on the left) and $S/\sqrt{B}$ (red dashed line, referring to the vertical axis on the right) for each category in the inclusive analysis in the dilepton channel (left) and in the single-lepton channels (right), where $S$ ($B$) is the number of selected signal (background) events predicted by the simulation and normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ .
Comparison between data and prediction for the $\Delta R$ between the Higgs candidate and the ${t\bar {t}}$ candidate system, after the inclusive fit to the data in the dilepton resolved channel for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the number of $b$-tagged jet pairs with an invariant mass within 30 GeV of 125 GeV, after the inclusive fit to the data in the dilepton resolved channel for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the reconstruction BDT score for the Higgs boson candidate identified using Higgs boson information, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton resolved channel for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the $\Delta R$ between the two highest ${p_{{T}}}$ $b$-tagged jets, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton resolved channel for $0\le p_T^H<120$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations.
Comparison between data and prediction for the sum of $b$-tagging discriminants of jets from Higgs, hadronic top and leptonic top candidates, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $300\le p_T^H<450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).
Comparison between data and prediction for the sum of $b$-tagging discriminants of jets from Higgs, hadronic top and leptonic top candidates, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $p_{{T}}^{H}\ge 450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).
Comparison between data and prediction for the hadronic top candidate invariant mass, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $300\le p_T^H<450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).
Comparison between data and prediction for the hadronic top candidate invariant mass, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $p_{{T}}^{H}\ge 450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).
Comparison between data and prediction for the fraction of the sum of $b$-tagging discriminants of all jets not associated to the Higgs or hadronic top candidates, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $300\le p_T^H<450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).
Comparison between data and prediction for the fraction of the sum of $b$-tagging discriminants of all jets not associated to the Higgs or hadronic top candidates, after the inclusive fit to the data in the single-lepton boosted channel for $p_{{T}}^{H}\ge 450$ GeV. The ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal yield (solid red) is normalised to the fitted $\mu $ value from the inclusive fit. The dashed line shows the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal distribution normalised to the total background prediction. The uncertainty band includes all uncertainties and their correlations. The first (last) bin includes the underflow (overflow).
Ranking of the 20 nuisance parameters with the largest post-fit impact on $\mu $ in the STXS fit for $0\le {\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}<120$ GeV. Nuisance parameters corresponding to statistical uncertainties in the simulated event samples are not included. The empty blue rectangles correspond to the pre-fit impact on $\mu $ and the filled blue ones to the post-fit impact on $\mu $, both referring to the upper scale. The impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta \mu $, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu $ with the result of the fit when fixing the considered nuisance parameter to its best-fit value, $\hat{\theta }$, shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\pm \Delta \theta $ ($\pm \Delta \hat{\theta }$). The black points show the pulls of the nuisance parameters relative to their nominal values, $\theta _0$. These pulls and their relative post-fit errors, $\Delta \hat{\theta }/\Delta \theta $, refer to the lower scale. For experimental uncertainties that are decomposed into several independent sources, NP X corresponds to the X$^{th}$ nuisance parameter, ordered by their impact on $\mu $. The `ljets' (`dilep') label refers to the single-lepton (dilepton) channel.
Ranking of the 20 nuisance parameters with the largest post-fit impact on $\mu $ in the STXS fit for $120\le {\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}<200$ GeV. Nuisance parameters corresponding to statistical uncertainties in the simulated event samples are not included. The empty blue rectangles correspond to the pre-fit impact on $\mu $ and the filled blue ones to the post-fit impact on $\mu $, both referring to the upper scale. The impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta \mu $, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu $ with the result of the fit when fixing the considered nuisance parameter to its best-fit value, $\hat{\theta }$, shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\pm \Delta \theta $ ($\pm \Delta \hat{\theta }$). The black points show the pulls of the nuisance parameters relative to their nominal values, $\theta _0$. These pulls and their relative post-fit errors, $\Delta \hat{\theta }/\Delta \theta $, refer to the lower scale. For experimental uncertainties that are decomposed into several independent sources, NP X corresponds to the X$^{th}$ nuisance parameter, ordered by their impact on $\mu $. The `ljets' (`dilep') label refers to the single-lepton (dilepton) channel.
Ranking of the 20 nuisance parameters with the largest post-fit impact on $\mu $ in the STXS fit for $200\le {\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}<300$ GeV. Nuisance parameters corresponding to statistical uncertainties in the simulated event samples are not included. The empty blue rectangles correspond to the pre-fit impact on $\mu $ and the filled blue ones to the post-fit impact on $\mu $, both referring to the upper scale. The impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta \mu $, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu $ with the result of the fit when fixing the considered nuisance parameter to its best-fit value, $\hat{\theta }$, shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\pm \Delta \theta $ ($\pm \Delta \hat{\theta }$). The black points show the pulls of the nuisance parameters relative to their nominal values, $\theta _0$. These pulls and their relative post-fit errors, $\Delta \hat{\theta }/\Delta \theta $, refer to the lower scale. For experimental uncertainties that are decomposed into several independent sources, NP X corresponds to the X$^{th}$ nuisance parameter, ordered by their impact on $\mu $. The `ljets' (`dilep') label refers to the single-lepton (dilepton) channel.
Ranking of the 20 nuisance parameters with the largest post-fit impact on $\mu $ in the STXS fit for $300\le {\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}<450$ GeV. Nuisance parameters corresponding to statistical uncertainties in the simulated event samples are not included. The empty blue rectangles correspond to the pre-fit impact on $\mu $ and the filled blue ones to the post-fit impact on $\mu $, both referring to the upper scale. The impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta \mu $, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu $ with the result of the fit when fixing the considered nuisance parameter to its best-fit value, $\hat{\theta }$, shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\pm \Delta \theta $ ($\pm \Delta \hat{\theta }$). The black points show the pulls of the nuisance parameters relative to their nominal values, $\theta _0$. These pulls and their relative post-fit errors, $\Delta \hat{\theta }/\Delta \theta $, refer to the lower scale. For experimental uncertainties that are decomposed into several independent sources, NP X corresponds to the X$^{th}$ nuisance parameter, ordered by their impact on $\mu $. The `ljets' (`dilep') label refers to the single-lepton (dilepton) channel.
Ranking of the 20 nuisance parameters with the largest post-fit impact on $\mu $ in the STXS fit for ${\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}\ge 450$ GeV. Nuisance parameters corresponding to statistical uncertainties in the simulated event samples are not included. The empty blue rectangles correspond to the pre-fit impact on $\mu $ and the filled blue ones to the post-fit impact on $\mu $, both referring to the upper scale. The impact of each nuisance parameter, $\Delta \mu $, is computed by comparing the nominal best-fit value of $\mu $ with the result of the fit when fixing the considered nuisance parameter to its best-fit value, $\hat{\theta }$, shifted by its pre-fit (post-fit) uncertainties $\pm \Delta \theta $ ($\pm \Delta \hat{\theta }$). The black points show the pulls of the nuisance parameters relative to their nominal values, $\theta _0$. These pulls and their relative post-fit errors, $\Delta \hat{\theta }/\Delta \theta $, refer to the lower scale. For experimental uncertainties that are decomposed into several independent sources, NP X corresponds to the X$^{th}$ nuisance parameter, ordered by their impact on $\mu $. The `ljets' (`dilep') label refers to the single-lepton (dilepton) channel.
95% confidence level upper limits on signal-strength measurements in the individual STXS ${\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}$ bins, as well as the inclusive signal-strength limit, after the fit used to extract multiple signal-strength parameters. The observed limits are shown (solid black lines), together with the expected limits both in the background-only hypothesis (dotted black lines) and in the SM hypothesis (dotted red lines). In the case of the expected limits in the background-only hypothesis, one- and two-standard-deviation uncertainty bands are also shown.
Post-fit correlation matrix (in percentages) between the $\mu $ values obtained in the STXS bins.
Performance of the Higgs boson reconstruction algorithms. For each row of `truth' ${\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}$, the matrix shows (in percentages) the fraction of Higgs boson candidates which are truth-matched to ${b\bar {b}}$ decays, with reconstructed $p_T^H$ in the various bins of the dilepton (left), single lepton resolved (middle) and boosted (right) channels.
Pre-fit event yields in the dilepton signal regions and control regions. All uncertainties are included except the $k({t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b})$ uncertainty that is not defined pre-fit. For the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal, the pre-fit yield values correspond to the theoretical prediction and corresponding uncertainties. `Other sources' refers to s-channel, t-channel, $tW$, $tWZ$, $tZq$, $Z+$ jets and diboson events.
Post-fit event yields in the dilepton signal regions and control regions, after the inclusive fit in all channels. All uncertainties are included, taking into account correlations. For the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal, the post-fit yield and uncertainties correspond to those in the inclusive signal-strength measurement. `Other sources' refers to s-channel, t-channel, $tW$, $tWZ$, $tZq$, $Z+$ jets and diboson events.
Pre-fit event yields in the single-lepton resolved and boosted signal regions and control regions. All uncertainties are included except the $k({t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b})$ uncertainty that is not defined pre-fit. For the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal, the pre-fit yield values correspond to the theoretical prediction and corresponding uncertainties. `Other top sources' refers to s-channel, t-channel, $tWZ$ and $tZq$ events.
Post-fit event yields in the single-lepton resolved and boosted signal regions and control regions, after the inclusive fit in all channels. All uncertainties are included, taking into account correlations. For the ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal, the post-fit yield and uncertainties correspond to those in the inclusive signal-strength measurement. `Other top sources' refers to s-channel, t-channel, $tWZ$ and $tZq$ events.
Breakdown of the contributions to the uncertainties in $\mu$. The contributions from the different sources of uncertainty are evaluated after the fit. The $\Delta \mu $ values are obtained by repeating the fit after having fixed a certain set of nuisance parameters corresponding to a group of systematic uncertainties, and then evaluating $(\Delta \mu)^2$ by subtracting the resulting squared uncertainty of $\mu $ from its squared uncertainty found in the full fit. The same procedure is followed when quoting the effect of the ${t\bar {t}+{\geq }1b}$ normalisation. The total uncertainty is different from the sum in quadrature of the different components due to correlations between nuisance parameters existing in the fit.
Fraction (in percentages) of signal events, after SR and CR selections, originating from $b\bar {b}$, $WW$ and other remaining Higgs boson decay modes in the dilepton channel.
Fraction (in percentages) of signal events, after SR and CR selections, originating from $b\bar {b}$, $WW$ and other remaining Higgs boson decay modes in the single-lepton channels.
Predicted SM ${t\bar {t}H}$ cross-section in each of the five STXS ${\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}$ bins and signal acceptance times efficiency (including all event selection criteria) in each STXS bin as well as for the inclusive ${\hat{p}_{{T}}^{H}}$ range.
Number of expected signal events before the fit, after each selection requirement applied to enter the dilepton channel $SR^{\geq 4j}_{\geq 4b}$ region. All ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal events are included, regardless of the $H$ or ${t\bar {t}H}$ decay mode. All object corrections are applied, except for the initial number of events which is calculated using the NLO QCD+EW theoretical prediction. All quoted numbers are rounded to unity. More details on the selection criteria can be found in the text.
Number of expected signal events before the fit, after each selection requirement applied to enter the single-lepton channel resolved $SR^{\geq 6j}_{\geq 4b}$ region. All ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal events are included, regardless of the $H$ or ${t\bar {t}H}$ decay mode. All object corrections are applied, except for the initial number of events which is calculated using the NLO QCD+EW theoretical prediction. All quoted numbers are rounded to unity. More details on the selection criteria can be found in the text.
Number of expected signal events before the fit, after each selection requirement applied to enter the single-lepton channel boosted $SR_{boosted}$ region. All ${t\bar {t}H}$ signal events are included, regardless of the $H$ or ${t\bar {t}H}$ decay mode. All object corrections are applied, except for the initial number of events which is calculated using the NLO QCD+EW theoretical prediction. All quoted numbers are rounded to unity. More details on the selection criteria can be found in the text.
A search for new phenomena in final states with hadronically decaying tau leptons, $b$-jets, and missing transverse momentum is presented. The analyzed dataset comprises $pp$~collision data at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt s = 13$ TeV with an integrated luminosity of 139/fb, delivered by the Large Hadron Collider and recorded with the ATLAS detector from 2015 to 2018. The observed data are compatible with the expected Standard Model background. The results are interpreted in simplified models for two different scenarios. The first model is based on supersymmetry and considers pair production of top squarks, each of which decays into a $b$-quark, a neutrino and a tau slepton. Each tau slepton in turn decays into a tau lepton and a nearly massless gravitino. Within this model, top-squark masses up to 1.4 TeV can be excluded at the 95% confidence level over a wide range of tau-slepton masses. The second model considers pair production of leptoquarks with decays into third-generation leptons and quarks. Depending on the branching fraction into charged leptons, leptoquarks with masses up to around 1.25 TeV can be excluded at the 95% confidence level for the case of scalar leptoquarks and up to 1.8 TeV (1.5 TeV) for vector leptoquarks in a Yang--Mills (minimal-coupling) scenario. In addition, model-independent upper limits are set on the cross section of processes beyond the Standard Model.
Relative systematic uncertainties in the estimated number of background events in the signal regions. In the lower part of the table, a breakdown of the total uncertainty into different categories is given. For the multi-bin SR, the breakdown refers to the integral over all three $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$ bins. As the individual uncertainties are correlated, they do not add in quadrature to equal the total background uncertainty.
Distributions of $m_{\text{T}2}(\tau_{1},\tau_{2})$ in the di-tau SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_{\text{T}}^{\text{miss}}$ in the di-tau SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $s_{\text{T}}$ in the single-tau one-bin SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{\text{T}}(\tau)$ in the single-tau one-bin SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $\Sigma m_{\text{T}}(b_{1,2})$ in the single-tau $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$-binned SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$ in the single-tau $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$-binned SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.
Observed event yields in data ('Observed') and expected event yields for SM background processes obtained from the background-only fit ('Total bkg.' and rows below) in the signal regions of the di-tau and single-tau channels. The quoted uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties and are truncated at zero yield. By construction, no $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) events can pass the selections in the single-tau channel. As the individual uncertainties are correlated, they do not add in quadrature to equal the total background uncertainty.
From left to right: upper limits at the 95% confidence level (CL) on the visible cross section ($\sigma_\text{vis}$) and on the number of signal events ($S_{\text{obs}}^{95}$). The third column ($S_{\text{exp}}^{95}$) shows the upper limit at the 95% CL on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and $\pm 1\,\sigma$ excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis ($\text{CL}_{b}$), the discovery $p$-value ($p(s=0)$) and the significance ($Z$). In the di-tau SR, where fewer events are observed than predicted by the fitted background estimate, the $p$-value is capped at 0.5.
Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for the minimal-coupling scenario. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.
Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for the minimal-coupling scenario. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.
Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for vector leptoquarks with additional gauge couplings. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.
Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for vector leptoquarks with additional gauge couplings. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.
Exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the stop-stau signal model as a function of the masses of the top squark $m(\tilde{t}_{1})$ and of the tau slepton $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1})$. Expected and observed limits are shown for the present search in comparison to observed limits from previous ATLAS analyses based on data from Run-1 of the LHC at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV [Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016)] and on a partial dataset from Run 2 at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV [Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 032008]. The green band indicates the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments.
Exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the stop-stau signal model as a function of the masses of the top squark $m(\tilde{t}_{1})$ and of the tau slepton $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1})$. Expected and observed limits are shown for the present search in comparison to observed limits from previous ATLAS analyses based on data from Run-1 of the LHC at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV [Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016)] and on a partial dataset from Run 2 at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV [Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 032008]. The green band indicates the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments.
Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ with charge $+2/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.
Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ with charge $+2/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.
Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ with charge $-1/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.
Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ with charge $-1/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.
Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the stop-stau signal model.
Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model with up-type leptoquarks.
Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model with down-type leptoquarks.
Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model with minimal coupling (MC).
Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model with additional gauge couplings (YM).
Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.
Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.
Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.
Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.
Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.
Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.
Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.
Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.
Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.
Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.
Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.
Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.
Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.
Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.
Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.
Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.
Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.
Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.
Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.
Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.
Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.
Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.
Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.
Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.
Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.
Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.
Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.
Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.
Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.
Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.
Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.
Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.
Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.
Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.
Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.
Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.
Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.
Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.
Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.
Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.
Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.
Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.
Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.
Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.
Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.
A search for chargino$-$neutralino pair production in three-lepton final states with missing transverse momentum is presented. The study is based on a dataset of $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV $pp$ collisions recorded with the ATLAS detector at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. No significant excess relative to the Standard Model predictions is found in data. The results are interpreted in simplified models of supersymmetry, and statistically combined with results from a previous ATLAS search for compressed spectra in two-lepton final states. Various scenarios for the production and decay of charginos ($\tilde\chi^\pm_1$) and neutralinos ($\tilde\chi^0_2$) are considered. For pure higgsino $\tilde\chi^\pm_1\tilde\chi^0_2$ pair-production scenarios, exclusion limits at 95% confidence level are set on $\tilde\chi^0_2$ masses up to 210 GeV. Limits are also set for pure wino $\tilde\chi^\pm_1\tilde\chi^0_2$ pair production, on $\tilde\chi^0_2$ masses up to 640 GeV for decays via on-shell $W$ and $Z$ bosons, up to 300 GeV for decays via off-shell $W$ and $Z$ bosons, and up to 190 GeV for decays via $W$ and Standard Model Higgs bosons.
This is the HEPData space for the ATLAS SUSY EWK three-lepton search. The full resolution figures can be found at https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/SUSY-2019-09/ The full statistical likelihoods have been provided for this analysis. They can be downloaded by clicking on the purple 'Resources' button above and selecting the 'Common Resources' category. <b>Region yields:</b> <ul display="inline-block"> <li><a href="?table=Tab%2012%20Onshell%20WZ%20Signal%20Region%20Yields%20Table">Tab 12 Onshell WZ Signal Region Yields Table</a> <li><a href="?table=Tab%2013%20Onshell%20Wh%20Signal%20Region%20Yields%20Table">Tab 13 Onshell Wh Signal Region Yields Table</a> <li><a href="?table=Tab%2014%20Offshell%20low-$E_{T}^{miss}$%20Signal%20Region%20Yields%20Table">Tab 14 Offshell low-$E_{T}^{miss}$ Signal Region Yields Table</a> <li><a href="?table=Tab%2015%20Offshell%20high-$E_{T}^{miss}$%20Signal%20Region%20Yields%20Table">Tab 15 Offshell high-$E_{T}^{miss}$ Signal Region Yields Table</a> <li><a href="?table=Tab%2020%20RJR%20Signal%20Region%20Yields%20Table">Tab 20 RJR Signal Region Yields Table</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%204%20Onshell%20Control%20and%20Validation%20Region%20Yields">Fig 4 Onshell Control and Validation Region Yields</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%208%20Offshell%20Control%20and%20Validation%20Region%20Yields">Fig 8 Offshell Control and Validation Region Yields</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2010%20Onshell%20WZ%20Signal%20Region%20Yields">Fig 10 Onshell WZ Signal Region Yields</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2011%20Onshell%20Wh%20Signal%20Region%20Yields">Fig 11 Onshell Wh Signal Region Yields</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2012%20Offshell%20Signal%20Region%20Yields">Fig 12 Offshell Signal Region Yields</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2018%20RJR%20Control%20and%20Validation%20Region%20Yields">Fig 18 RJR Control and Validation Region Yields</a> </ul> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul display="inline-block"> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20Obs">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20Obs_Up">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), Obs_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20Obs_Down">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), Obs_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20Exp">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20Exp_Up">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), Exp_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20Exp_Down">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), Exp_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20compressed_Obs">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), compressed_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20compressed_Exp">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), compressed_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20offshell_Obs">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), offshell_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20offshell_Exp">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), offshell_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20onshell_Obs">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), onshell_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20onshell_Exp">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), onshell_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs_Up">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), Obs_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs_Down">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), Obs_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp_Up">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), Exp_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp_Down">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), Exp_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20compressed_Obs">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), compressed_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20compressed_Exp">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), compressed_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20offshell_Obs">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), offshell_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20offshell_Exp">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), offshell_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20onshell_Obs">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), onshell_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20onshell_Exp">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), onshell_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs_Up">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), Obs_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs_Down">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), Obs_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp_Up">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), Exp_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp_Down">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), Exp_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20compressed_Obs">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), compressed_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20compressed_Exp">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), compressed_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20offshell_Obs">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), offshell_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20offshell_Exp">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), offshell_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs_Up">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), Obs_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs_Down">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), Obs_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp_Up">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), Exp_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp_Down">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), Exp_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20compressed_Obs">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), compressed_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20compressed_Exp">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), compressed_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20offshell_Obs">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), offshell_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20offshell_Exp">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), offshell_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2017%20Wh%20Exclusion,%20Obs">Fig 17 Wh Exclusion, Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2017%20Wh%20Exclusion,%20Obs_Up">Fig 17 Wh Exclusion, Obs_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2017%20Wh%20Exclusion,%20Obs_Down">Fig 17 Wh Exclusion, Obs_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2017%20Wh%20Exclusion,%20Exp">Fig 17 Wh Exclusion, Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2017%20Wh%20Exclusion,%20Exp_Up">Fig 17 Wh Exclusion, Exp_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2017%20Wh%20Exclusion,%20Exp_Down">Fig 17 Wh Exclusion, Exp_Down</a> </ul> <b>Upper limits:</b> <ul display="inline-block"> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%208a%20WZ%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Obs.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$)">AuxFig 8a WZ Excl. Upper Limit Obs. Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%208b%20WZ%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Exp.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$)">AuxFig 8b WZ Excl. Upper Limit Exp. Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%208c%20WZ%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Obs.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$)">AuxFig 8c WZ Excl. Upper Limit Obs. Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%208d%20WZ%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Exp.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$)">AuxFig 8d WZ Excl. Upper Limit Exp. Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%208e%20WZ%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Obs.%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$)">AuxFig 8e WZ Excl. Upper Limit Obs. Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%208f%20WZ%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Exp.%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$)">AuxFig 8f WZ Excl. Upper Limit Exp. Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%208g%20WZ%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Obs.%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$)">AuxFig 8g WZ Excl. Upper Limit Obs. Higgsino ($\Delta m$)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%208h%20WZ%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Exp.%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$)">AuxFig 8h WZ Excl. Upper Limit Exp. Higgsino ($\Delta m$)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%209a%20Wh%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Obs.">AuxFig 9a Wh Excl. Upper Limit Obs.</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%209b%20Wh%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Exp.">AuxFig 9b Wh Excl. Upper Limit Exp.</a> </ul> <b>Model-independent discovery fits:</b> <ul display="inline-block"> <li><a href="?table=Tab%2018%20Onshell%20Discovery%20Fit%20Table">Tab 18 Onshell Discovery Fit Table</a> <li><a href="?table=Tab%2019%20Offshell%20Discovery%20Fit%20Table">Tab 19 Offshell Discovery Fit Table</a> <li><a href="?table=Tab%2021%20RJR%20Discovery%20Fit%20Table">Tab 21 RJR Discovery Fit Table</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions:</b> <ul display="inline-block"> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2013a%20SR$_{DFOS}^{Wh}$-1%20($\Delta%20R_{OS,%20near}$)">Fig 13a SR$_{DFOS}^{Wh}$-1 ($\Delta R_{OS, near}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2013b%20SR$_{DFOS}^{Wh}$-2%20(3rd%20Lep.%20$p_{T}$)">Fig 13b SR$_{DFOS}^{Wh}$-2 (3rd Lep. $p_{T}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2013c%20SR$_{0j}^{WZ}$%20($E_{T}^{miss}$)">Fig 13c SR$_{0j}^{WZ}$ ($E_{T}^{miss}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2013d%20SR$_{0j}^{WZ}$%20($m_{T}$)">Fig 13d SR$_{0j}^{WZ}$ ($m_{T}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2014a%20SR$^{offWZ}_{LowETmiss}$-0j%20($m_{T}^{minmll}$)">Fig 14a SR$^{offWZ}_{LowETmiss}$-0j ($m_{T}^{minmll}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2014b%20SR$^{offWZ}_{LowETmiss}$-nj%20($m_{T}^{minmll}$)">Fig 14b SR$^{offWZ}_{LowETmiss}$-nj ($m_{T}^{minmll}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2014c%20SR$^{offWZ}_{HighETmiss}$-0j%20($m_{T}^{minmll}$)">Fig 14c SR$^{offWZ}_{HighETmiss}$-0j ($m_{T}^{minmll}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2014d%20SR$^{offWZ}_{HighETmiss}$-nj%20($p_T^l%20\div%20E_T^{miss}$)">Fig 14d SR$^{offWZ}_{HighETmiss}$-nj ($p_T^l \div E_T^{miss}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2020a%20RJR%20SR3$\ell$-Low%20($p_{T}^{\ell%201}$)">Fig 20a RJR SR3$\ell$-Low ($p_{T}^{\ell 1}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2020b%20RJR%20SR3$\ell$-Low%20($H_{3,1}^{PP}$)">Fig 20b RJR SR3$\ell$-Low ($H_{3,1}^{PP}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2020c%20RJR%20SR3$\ell$-ISR%20($p_{T~ISR}^{CM}$)">Fig 20c RJR SR3$\ell$-ISR ($p_{T~ISR}^{CM}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2020d%20RJR%20SR3$\ell$-ISR%20($R_{ISR}$)">Fig 20d RJR SR3$\ell$-ISR ($R_{ISR}$)</a> </ul> <b>Cutflows:</b> <ul display="inline-block"> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%205%20Cutflow:%20Onshell%20WZ">AuxTab 5 Cutflow: Onshell WZ</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%206%20Cutflow:%20Onshell%20Wh">AuxTab 6 Cutflow: Onshell Wh</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%207%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20(250,235)">AuxTab 7 Cutflow: Offshell Wino-bino(+) (250,235)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%208%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20(125,85)">AuxTab 8 Cutflow: Offshell Wino-bino(+) (125,85)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%209%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20(250,170)">AuxTab 9 Cutflow: Offshell Wino-bino(+) (250,170)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%2010%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Wino-bino(-)%20(250,235)">AuxTab 10 Cutflow: Offshell Wino-bino(-) (250,235)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%2011%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Wino-bino(-)%20(125,85)">AuxTab 11 Cutflow: Offshell Wino-bino(-) (125,85)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%2012%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Wino-bino(-)%20(250,170)">AuxTab 12 Cutflow: Offshell Wino-bino(-) (250,170)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%2013%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Higgsino%20(120,100)">AuxTab 13 Cutflow: Offshell Higgsino (120,100)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%2014%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Higgsino%20(100,40)">AuxTab 14 Cutflow: Offshell Higgsino (100,40)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%2015%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Higgsino%20(185,125)">AuxTab 15 Cutflow: Offshell Higgsino (185,125)</a> </ul> <b>Acceptances and Efficiencies:</b> <ul display="inline-block"> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2010a%20Acc:%20Onshell%20SR$_{0j}^{WZ}$">AuxFig 10a Acc: Onshell SR$_{0j}^{WZ}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2010b%20Eff:%20Onshell%20SR$_{0j}^{WZ}$">AuxFig 10b Eff: Onshell SR$_{0j}^{WZ}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2010c%20Acc:%20Onshell%20SR$_{nj}^{WZ}$">AuxFig 10c Acc: Onshell SR$_{nj}^{WZ}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2010d%20Eff:%20Onshell%20SR$_{nj}^{WZ}$">AuxFig 10d Eff: Onshell SR$_{nj}^{WZ}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2011a%20Acc:%20Onshell%20SR$_{low-m_{ll}-0j}^{Wh}$">AuxFig 11a Acc: Onshell SR$_{low-m_{ll}-0j}^{Wh}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2011b%20Eff:%20Onshell%20SR$_{low-m_{ll}-0j}^{Wh}$">AuxFig 11b Eff: Onshell SR$_{low-m_{ll}-0j}^{Wh}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2011c%20Acc:%20Onshell%20SR$_{low-m_{ll}-nj}^{Wh}$">AuxFig 11c Acc: Onshell SR$_{low-m_{ll}-nj}^{Wh}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2011d%20Eff:%20Onshell%20SR$_{low-m_{ll}-nj}^{Wh}$">AuxFig 11d Eff: Onshell SR$_{low-m_{ll}-nj}^{Wh}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2011e%20Acc:%20Onshell%20SR$_{DFOS}^{Wh}$">AuxFig 11e Acc: Onshell SR$_{DFOS}^{Wh}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2011f%20Eff:%20Onshell%20SR$_{DFOS}^{Wh}$">AuxFig 11f Eff: Onshell SR$_{DFOS}^{Wh}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2012a%20Acc:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 12a Acc: Off. Wino-bino(+) SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2012b%20Eff:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 12b Eff: Off. Wino-bino(+) SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2012c%20Acc:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 12c Acc: Off. Wino-bino(+) SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2012d%20Eff:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 12d Eff: Off. Wino-bino(+) SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2012e%20Acc:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 12e Acc: Off. Wino-bino(+) SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2012f%20Eff:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 12f Eff: Off. Wino-bino(+) SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2012g%20Acc:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 12g Acc: Off. Wino-bino(+) SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2012h%20Eff:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 12h Eff: Off. Wino-bino(+) SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2013a%20Acc:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(-)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 13a Acc: Off. Wino-bino(-) SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2013b%20Eff:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(-)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 13b Eff: Off. Wino-bino(-) SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2013c%20Acc:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(-)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 13c Acc: Off. Wino-bino(-) SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2013d%20Eff:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(-)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 13d Eff: Off. Wino-bino(-) SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2013e%20Acc:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(-)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 13e Acc: Off. Wino-bino(-) SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2013f%20Eff:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(-)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 13f Eff: Off. Wino-bino(-) SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2013g%20Acc:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(-)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 13g Acc: Off. Wino-bino(-) SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2013h%20Eff:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(-)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 13h Eff: Off. Wino-bino(-) SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2014a%20Acc:%20Off.%20Higgsino%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 14a Acc: Off. Higgsino SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2014b%20Eff:%20Off.%20Higgsino%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 14b Eff: Off. Higgsino SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2014c%20Acc:%20Off.%20Higgsino%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 14c Acc: Off. Higgsino SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2014d%20Eff:%20Off.%20Higgsino%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 14d Eff: Off. Higgsino SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2014e%20Acc:%20Off.%20Higgsino%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 14e Acc: Off. Higgsino SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2014f%20Eff:%20Off.%20Higgsino%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 14f Eff: Off. Higgsino SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2014g%20Acc:%20Off.%20Higgsino%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 14g Acc: Off. Higgsino SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2014h%20Eff:%20Off.%20Higgsino%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 14h Eff: Off. Higgsino SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj</a> </ul>
This is the HEPData space for the ATLAS SUSY EWK three-lepton search. The full resolution figures can be found at https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/SUSY-2019-09/ The full statistical likelihoods have been provided for this analysis. They can be downloaded by clicking on the purple 'Resources' button above and selecting the 'Common Resources' category. <b>Region yields:</b> <ul display="inline-block"> <li><a href="?table=Tab%2012%20Onshell%20WZ%20Signal%20Region%20Yields%20Table">Tab 12 Onshell WZ Signal Region Yields Table</a> <li><a href="?table=Tab%2013%20Onshell%20Wh%20Signal%20Region%20Yields%20Table">Tab 13 Onshell Wh Signal Region Yields Table</a> <li><a href="?table=Tab%2014%20Offshell%20low-$E_{T}^{miss}$%20Signal%20Region%20Yields%20Table">Tab 14 Offshell low-$E_{T}^{miss}$ Signal Region Yields Table</a> <li><a href="?table=Tab%2015%20Offshell%20high-$E_{T}^{miss}$%20Signal%20Region%20Yields%20Table">Tab 15 Offshell high-$E_{T}^{miss}$ Signal Region Yields Table</a> <li><a href="?table=Tab%2020%20RJR%20Signal%20Region%20Yields%20Table">Tab 20 RJR Signal Region Yields Table</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%204%20Onshell%20Control%20and%20Validation%20Region%20Yields">Fig 4 Onshell Control and Validation Region Yields</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%208%20Offshell%20Control%20and%20Validation%20Region%20Yields">Fig 8 Offshell Control and Validation Region Yields</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2010%20Onshell%20WZ%20Signal%20Region%20Yields">Fig 10 Onshell WZ Signal Region Yields</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2011%20Onshell%20Wh%20Signal%20Region%20Yields">Fig 11 Onshell Wh Signal Region Yields</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2012%20Offshell%20Signal%20Region%20Yields">Fig 12 Offshell Signal Region Yields</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2018%20RJR%20Control%20and%20Validation%20Region%20Yields">Fig 18 RJR Control and Validation Region Yields</a> </ul> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul display="inline-block"> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20Obs">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20Obs_Up">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), Obs_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20Obs_Down">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), Obs_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20Exp">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20Exp_Up">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), Exp_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20Exp_Down">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), Exp_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20compressed_Obs">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), compressed_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20compressed_Exp">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), compressed_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20offshell_Obs">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), offshell_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20offshell_Exp">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), offshell_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20onshell_Obs">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), onshell_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016a%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b),%20onshell_Exp">Fig 16a WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+), onshell_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs_Up">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), Obs_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs_Down">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), Obs_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp_Up">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), Exp_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp_Down">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), Exp_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20compressed_Obs">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), compressed_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20compressed_Exp">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), compressed_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20offshell_Obs">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), offshell_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20offshell_Exp">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), offshell_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20onshell_Obs">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), onshell_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016b%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20onshell_Exp">Fig 16b WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$), onshell_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs_Up">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), Obs_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs_Down">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), Obs_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp_Up">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), Exp_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp_Down">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), Exp_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20compressed_Obs">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), compressed_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20compressed_Exp">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), compressed_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20offshell_Obs">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), offshell_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016c%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$),%20offshell_Exp">Fig 16c WZ Exclusion: Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$), offshell_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs_Up">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), Obs_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Obs_Down">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), Obs_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp_Up">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), Exp_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20Exp_Down">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), Exp_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20compressed_Obs">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), compressed_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20compressed_Exp">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), compressed_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20offshell_Obs">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), offshell_Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2016d%20WZ%20Exclusion:%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$),%20offshell_Exp">Fig 16d WZ Exclusion: Higgsino ($\Delta m$), offshell_Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2017%20Wh%20Exclusion,%20Obs">Fig 17 Wh Exclusion, Obs</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2017%20Wh%20Exclusion,%20Obs_Up">Fig 17 Wh Exclusion, Obs_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2017%20Wh%20Exclusion,%20Obs_Down">Fig 17 Wh Exclusion, Obs_Down</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2017%20Wh%20Exclusion,%20Exp">Fig 17 Wh Exclusion, Exp</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2017%20Wh%20Exclusion,%20Exp_Up">Fig 17 Wh Exclusion, Exp_Up</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2017%20Wh%20Exclusion,%20Exp_Down">Fig 17 Wh Exclusion, Exp_Down</a> </ul> <b>Upper limits:</b> <ul display="inline-block"> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%208a%20WZ%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Obs.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$)">AuxFig 8a WZ Excl. Upper Limit Obs. Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%208b%20WZ%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Exp.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$)">AuxFig 8b WZ Excl. Upper Limit Exp. Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%208c%20WZ%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Obs.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$)">AuxFig 8c WZ Excl. Upper Limit Obs. Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%208d%20WZ%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Exp.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20($\Delta%20m$)">AuxFig 8d WZ Excl. Upper Limit Exp. Wino-bino(+) ($\Delta m$)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%208e%20WZ%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Obs.%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$)">AuxFig 8e WZ Excl. Upper Limit Obs. Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%208f%20WZ%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Exp.%20Wino-bino(-)%20($\Delta%20m$)">AuxFig 8f WZ Excl. Upper Limit Exp. Wino-bino(-) ($\Delta m$)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%208g%20WZ%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Obs.%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$)">AuxFig 8g WZ Excl. Upper Limit Obs. Higgsino ($\Delta m$)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%208h%20WZ%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Exp.%20Higgsino%20($\Delta%20m$)">AuxFig 8h WZ Excl. Upper Limit Exp. Higgsino ($\Delta m$)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%209a%20Wh%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Obs.">AuxFig 9a Wh Excl. Upper Limit Obs.</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%209b%20Wh%20Excl.%20Upper%20Limit%20Exp.">AuxFig 9b Wh Excl. Upper Limit Exp.</a> </ul> <b>Model-independent discovery fits:</b> <ul display="inline-block"> <li><a href="?table=Tab%2018%20Onshell%20Discovery%20Fit%20Table">Tab 18 Onshell Discovery Fit Table</a> <li><a href="?table=Tab%2019%20Offshell%20Discovery%20Fit%20Table">Tab 19 Offshell Discovery Fit Table</a> <li><a href="?table=Tab%2021%20RJR%20Discovery%20Fit%20Table">Tab 21 RJR Discovery Fit Table</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions:</b> <ul display="inline-block"> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2013a%20SR$_{DFOS}^{Wh}$-1%20($\Delta%20R_{OS,%20near}$)">Fig 13a SR$_{DFOS}^{Wh}$-1 ($\Delta R_{OS, near}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2013b%20SR$_{DFOS}^{Wh}$-2%20(3rd%20Lep.%20$p_{T}$)">Fig 13b SR$_{DFOS}^{Wh}$-2 (3rd Lep. $p_{T}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2013c%20SR$_{0j}^{WZ}$%20($E_{T}^{miss}$)">Fig 13c SR$_{0j}^{WZ}$ ($E_{T}^{miss}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2013d%20SR$_{0j}^{WZ}$%20($m_{T}$)">Fig 13d SR$_{0j}^{WZ}$ ($m_{T}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2014a%20SR$^{offWZ}_{LowETmiss}$-0j%20($m_{T}^{minmll}$)">Fig 14a SR$^{offWZ}_{LowETmiss}$-0j ($m_{T}^{minmll}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2014b%20SR$^{offWZ}_{LowETmiss}$-nj%20($m_{T}^{minmll}$)">Fig 14b SR$^{offWZ}_{LowETmiss}$-nj ($m_{T}^{minmll}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2014c%20SR$^{offWZ}_{HighETmiss}$-0j%20($m_{T}^{minmll}$)">Fig 14c SR$^{offWZ}_{HighETmiss}$-0j ($m_{T}^{minmll}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2014d%20SR$^{offWZ}_{HighETmiss}$-nj%20($p_T^l%20\div%20E_T^{miss}$)">Fig 14d SR$^{offWZ}_{HighETmiss}$-nj ($p_T^l \div E_T^{miss}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2020a%20RJR%20SR3$\ell$-Low%20($p_{T}^{\ell%201}$)">Fig 20a RJR SR3$\ell$-Low ($p_{T}^{\ell 1}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2020b%20RJR%20SR3$\ell$-Low%20($H_{3,1}^{PP}$)">Fig 20b RJR SR3$\ell$-Low ($H_{3,1}^{PP}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2020c%20RJR%20SR3$\ell$-ISR%20($p_{T~ISR}^{CM}$)">Fig 20c RJR SR3$\ell$-ISR ($p_{T~ISR}^{CM}$)</a> <li><a href="?table=Fig%2020d%20RJR%20SR3$\ell$-ISR%20($R_{ISR}$)">Fig 20d RJR SR3$\ell$-ISR ($R_{ISR}$)</a> </ul> <b>Cutflows:</b> <ul display="inline-block"> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%205%20Cutflow:%20Onshell%20WZ">AuxTab 5 Cutflow: Onshell WZ</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%206%20Cutflow:%20Onshell%20Wh">AuxTab 6 Cutflow: Onshell Wh</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%207%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20(250,235)">AuxTab 7 Cutflow: Offshell Wino-bino(+) (250,235)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%208%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20(125,85)">AuxTab 8 Cutflow: Offshell Wino-bino(+) (125,85)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%209%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20(250,170)">AuxTab 9 Cutflow: Offshell Wino-bino(+) (250,170)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%2010%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Wino-bino(-)%20(250,235)">AuxTab 10 Cutflow: Offshell Wino-bino(-) (250,235)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%2011%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Wino-bino(-)%20(125,85)">AuxTab 11 Cutflow: Offshell Wino-bino(-) (125,85)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%2012%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Wino-bino(-)%20(250,170)">AuxTab 12 Cutflow: Offshell Wino-bino(-) (250,170)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%2013%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Higgsino%20(120,100)">AuxTab 13 Cutflow: Offshell Higgsino (120,100)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%2014%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Higgsino%20(100,40)">AuxTab 14 Cutflow: Offshell Higgsino (100,40)</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxTab%2015%20Cutflow:%20Offshell%20Higgsino%20(185,125)">AuxTab 15 Cutflow: Offshell Higgsino (185,125)</a> </ul> <b>Acceptances and Efficiencies:</b> <ul display="inline-block"> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2010a%20Acc:%20Onshell%20SR$_{0j}^{WZ}$">AuxFig 10a Acc: Onshell SR$_{0j}^{WZ}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2010b%20Eff:%20Onshell%20SR$_{0j}^{WZ}$">AuxFig 10b Eff: Onshell SR$_{0j}^{WZ}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2010c%20Acc:%20Onshell%20SR$_{nj}^{WZ}$">AuxFig 10c Acc: Onshell SR$_{nj}^{WZ}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2010d%20Eff:%20Onshell%20SR$_{nj}^{WZ}$">AuxFig 10d Eff: Onshell SR$_{nj}^{WZ}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2011a%20Acc:%20Onshell%20SR$_{low-m_{ll}-0j}^{Wh}$">AuxFig 11a Acc: Onshell SR$_{low-m_{ll}-0j}^{Wh}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2011b%20Eff:%20Onshell%20SR$_{low-m_{ll}-0j}^{Wh}$">AuxFig 11b Eff: Onshell SR$_{low-m_{ll}-0j}^{Wh}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2011c%20Acc:%20Onshell%20SR$_{low-m_{ll}-nj}^{Wh}$">AuxFig 11c Acc: Onshell SR$_{low-m_{ll}-nj}^{Wh}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2011d%20Eff:%20Onshell%20SR$_{low-m_{ll}-nj}^{Wh}$">AuxFig 11d Eff: Onshell SR$_{low-m_{ll}-nj}^{Wh}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2011e%20Acc:%20Onshell%20SR$_{DFOS}^{Wh}$">AuxFig 11e Acc: Onshell SR$_{DFOS}^{Wh}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2011f%20Eff:%20Onshell%20SR$_{DFOS}^{Wh}$">AuxFig 11f Eff: Onshell SR$_{DFOS}^{Wh}$</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2012a%20Acc:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 12a Acc: Off. Wino-bino(+) SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2012b%20Eff:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 12b Eff: Off. Wino-bino(+) SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2012c%20Acc:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 12c Acc: Off. Wino-bino(+) SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2012d%20Eff:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 12d Eff: Off. Wino-bino(+) SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2012e%20Acc:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 12e Acc: Off. Wino-bino(+) SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2012f%20Eff:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 12f Eff: Off. Wino-bino(+) SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2012g%20Acc:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 12g Acc: Off. Wino-bino(+) SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2012h%20Eff:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(%2b)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 12h Eff: Off. Wino-bino(+) SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2013a%20Acc:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(-)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 13a Acc: Off. Wino-bino(-) SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2013b%20Eff:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(-)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 13b Eff: Off. Wino-bino(-) SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2013c%20Acc:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(-)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 13c Acc: Off. Wino-bino(-) SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2013d%20Eff:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(-)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 13d Eff: Off. Wino-bino(-) SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2013e%20Acc:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(-)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 13e Acc: Off. Wino-bino(-) SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2013f%20Eff:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(-)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 13f Eff: Off. Wino-bino(-) SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2013g%20Acc:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(-)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 13g Acc: Off. Wino-bino(-) SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2013h%20Eff:%20Off.%20Wino-bino(-)%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 13h Eff: Off. Wino-bino(-) SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2014a%20Acc:%20Off.%20Higgsino%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 14a Acc: Off. Higgsino SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2014b%20Eff:%20Off.%20Higgsino%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 14b Eff: Off. Higgsino SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2014c%20Acc:%20Off.%20Higgsino%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 14c Acc: Off. Higgsino SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2014d%20Eff:%20Off.%20Higgsino%20SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 14d Eff: Off. Higgsino SR$^{offWZ}_{lowETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2014e%20Acc:%20Off.%20Higgsino%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 14e Acc: Off. Higgsino SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2014f%20Eff:%20Off.%20Higgsino%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j">AuxFig 14f Eff: Off. Higgsino SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-0j</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2014g%20Acc:%20Off.%20Higgsino%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 14g Acc: Off. Higgsino SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj</a> <li><a href="?table=AuxFig%2014h%20Eff:%20Off.%20Higgsino%20SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj">AuxFig 14h Eff: Off. Higgsino SR$^{offWZ}_{highETmiss}$-nj</a> </ul>
Comparison of the observed data and expected SM background yields in the CRs (pre-fit) and VRs (post-fit) of the onshell $W\!Z$ and $W\!h$ selections. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. The hatched band indicates the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties. The bottom panel shows the relative difference between the observed data and expected yields for the CRs and the significance of the difference for the VRs, calculated with the profile likelihood method from [169], adding a minus sign if the yield is below the prediction.
Comparison of the observed data and expected SM background yields in the CRs (pre-fit) and VRs (post-fit) of the onshell $W\!Z$ and $W\!h$ selections. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. The hatched band indicates the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties. The bottom panel shows the relative difference between the observed data and expected yields for the CRs and the significance of the difference for the VRs, calculated with the profile likelihood method from [169], adding a minus sign if the yield is below the prediction.
Comparison of the observed data and expected SM background yields in the CRs and VRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The SM prediction is taken from the background-only fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. The hatched band indicates the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between the observed and expected yields, calculated with the profile likelihood method from [169], adding a minus sign if the yield is below the prediction.
Comparison of the observed data and expected SM background yields in the CRs and VRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The SM prediction is taken from the background-only fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. The hatched band indicates the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between the observed and expected yields, calculated with the profile likelihood method from [169], adding a minus sign if the yield is below the prediction.
Observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in the SRs for the onshell $W\!Z$ selection. The normalization factors of the $W\!Z$ sample are extracted separately for the 0j, low-H<sub>T</sub> and high-H<sub>T</sub> regions, and are treated separately in the combined fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented.
Observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in the SRs for the onshell $W\!Z$ selection. The normalization factors of the $W\!Z$ sample are extracted separately for the 0j, low-H<sub>T</sub> and high-H<sub>T</sub> regions, and are treated separately in the combined fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented.
Observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in the SRs for the $W\!h$ selection. The normalization factors of the $W\!Z$ sample are extracted separately for the 0j, low-H<sub>T</sub> and high-H<sub>T</sub> regions, and are treated separately in the combined fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, tt̄+X and rare top processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented.
Observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in the SRs for the $W\!h$ selection. The normalization factors of the $W\!Z$ sample are extracted separately for the 0j, low-H<sub>T</sub> and high-H<sub>T</sub> regions, and are treated separately in the combined fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, tt̄+X and rare top processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented.
Comparison of the observed data and expected SM background yields in the SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ selection. The SM prediction is taken from the background-only fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. The hatched band indicates the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between the observed and expected yields, calculated with the profile likelihood method from [169], adding a minus sign if the yield is below the prediction.
Comparison of the observed data and expected SM background yields in the SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ selection. The SM prediction is taken from the background-only fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. The hatched band indicates the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between the observed and expected yields, calculated with the profile likelihood method from [169], adding a minus sign if the yield is below the prediction.
Comparison of the observed data and expected SM background yields in the SRs of the $W\!h$ selection. The SM prediction is taken from the background-only fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, tt̄+X and rare top processes. The hatched band indicates the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!h$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between the observed and expected yields, calculated with the profile likelihood method from [169], adding a minus sign if the yield is below the prediction.
Comparison of the observed data and expected SM background yields in the SRs of the $W\!h$ selection. The SM prediction is taken from the background-only fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, tt̄+X and rare top processes. The hatched band indicates the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!h$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between the observed and expected yields, calculated with the profile likelihood method from [169], adding a minus sign if the yield is below the prediction.
Observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>. The normalization factors of the $W\!Z$ sample extracted separately for 0j and nj, and are treated separately in the combined fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented.
Observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>. The normalization factors of the $W\!Z$ sample extracted separately for 0j and nj, and are treated separately in the combined fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented.
Observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>. The normalization factors of the $W\!Z$ sample extracted separately for 0j and nj, and are treated separately in the combined fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented.
Observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>. The normalization factors of the $W\!Z$ sample extracted separately for 0j and nj, and are treated separately in the combined fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented.
Comparison of the observed data and expected SM background yields in the SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The SM prediction is taken from the background-only fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. The hatched band indicates the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W^{*}\!Z^{*}$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between the observed and expected yields, calculated with the profile likelihood method from [169], adding a minus sign if the yield is below the prediction.
Comparison of the observed data and expected SM background yields in the SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The SM prediction is taken from the background-only fit. The "Others" category contains the single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. The hatched band indicates the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W^{*}\!Z^{*}$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between the observed and expected yields, calculated with the profile likelihood method from [169], adding a minus sign if the yield is below the prediction.
Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ and $W\!h$ selections. The figure shows (a) the ΔR<sub>OS,near</sub> distribution in SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub>-1, (b) the 3rd leading lepton p<sub>T</sub> in SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub>-2, and the (c) E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> and (d) m<sub>T</sub> distributions in SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub> (with all SR-i bins of SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub> summed up). The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes, except in the top panels, where triboson and Higgs production contributions are shown separately, and tt̄+X is merged into Others. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$/$W\!h$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ and $W\!h$ selections. The figure shows (a) the ΔR<sub>OS,near</sub> distribution in SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub>-1, (b) the 3rd leading lepton p<sub>T</sub> in SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub>-2, and the (c) E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> and (d) m<sub>T</sub> distributions in SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub> (with all SR-i bins of SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub> summed up). The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes, except in the top panels, where triboson and Higgs production contributions are shown separately, and tt̄+X is merged into Others. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$/$W\!h$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ and $W\!h$ selections. The figure shows (a) the ΔR<sub>OS,near</sub> distribution in SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub>-1, (b) the 3rd leading lepton p<sub>T</sub> in SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub>-2, and the (c) E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> and (d) m<sub>T</sub> distributions in SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub> (with all SR-i bins of SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub> summed up). The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes, except in the top panels, where triboson and Higgs production contributions are shown separately, and tt̄+X is merged into Others. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$/$W\!h$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ and $W\!h$ selections. The figure shows (a) the ΔR<sub>OS,near</sub> distribution in SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub>-1, (b) the 3rd leading lepton p<sub>T</sub> in SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub>-2, and the (c) E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> and (d) m<sub>T</sub> distributions in SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub> (with all SR-i bins of SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub> summed up). The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes, except in the top panels, where triboson and Higgs production contributions are shown separately, and tt̄+X is merged into Others. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$/$W\!h$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ and $W\!h$ selections. The figure shows (a) the ΔR<sub>OS,near</sub> distribution in SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub>-1, (b) the 3rd leading lepton p<sub>T</sub> in SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub>-2, and the (c) E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> and (d) m<sub>T</sub> distributions in SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub> (with all SR-i bins of SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub> summed up). The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes, except in the top panels, where triboson and Higgs production contributions are shown separately, and tt̄+X is merged into Others. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$/$W\!h$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ and $W\!h$ selections. The figure shows (a) the ΔR<sub>OS,near</sub> distribution in SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub>-1, (b) the 3rd leading lepton p<sub>T</sub> in SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub>-2, and the (c) E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> and (d) m<sub>T</sub> distributions in SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub> (with all SR-i bins of SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub> summed up). The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes, except in the top panels, where triboson and Higgs production contributions are shown separately, and tt̄+X is merged into Others. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$/$W\!h$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ and $W\!h$ selections. The figure shows (a) the ΔR<sub>OS,near</sub> distribution in SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub>-1, (b) the 3rd leading lepton p<sub>T</sub> in SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub>-2, and the (c) E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> and (d) m<sub>T</sub> distributions in SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub> (with all SR-i bins of SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub> summed up). The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes, except in the top panels, where triboson and Higgs production contributions are shown separately, and tt̄+X is merged into Others. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$/$W\!h$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ and $W\!h$ selections. The figure shows (a) the ΔR<sub>OS,near</sub> distribution in SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub>-1, (b) the 3rd leading lepton p<sub>T</sub> in SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub>-2, and the (c) E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> and (d) m<sub>T</sub> distributions in SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub> (with all SR-i bins of SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub> summed up). The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes, except in the top panels, where triboson and Higgs production contributions are shown separately, and tt̄+X is merged into Others. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$/$W\!h$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The figure shows the m<sub>T</sub><sup>m<sub>ll</sub>min</sup> distribution in (a) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj and (c) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and the |p<sub>T</sub><sup>lep</sup>|/E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> distribution in (d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj. The contributing m<sub>ll</sub><sup>min</sup> mass bins within each SR<sup>offWZ</sup> category are summed together. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The figure shows the m<sub>T</sub><sup>m<sub>ll</sub>min</sup> distribution in (a) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj and (c) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and the |p<sub>T</sub><sup>lep</sup>|/E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> distribution in (d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj. The contributing m<sub>ll</sub><sup>min</sup> mass bins within each SR<sup>offWZ</sup> category are summed together. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The figure shows the m<sub>T</sub><sup>m<sub>ll</sub>min</sup> distribution in (a) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj and (c) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and the |p<sub>T</sub><sup>lep</sup>|/E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> distribution in (d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj. The contributing m<sub>ll</sub><sup>min</sup> mass bins within each SR<sup>offWZ</sup> category are summed together. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The figure shows the m<sub>T</sub><sup>m<sub>ll</sub>min</sup> distribution in (a) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj and (c) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and the |p<sub>T</sub><sup>lep</sup>|/E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> distribution in (d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj. The contributing m<sub>ll</sub><sup>min</sup> mass bins within each SR<sup>offWZ</sup> category are summed together. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The figure shows the m<sub>T</sub><sup>m<sub>ll</sub>min</sup> distribution in (a) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj and (c) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and the |p<sub>T</sub><sup>lep</sup>|/E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> distribution in (d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj. The contributing m<sub>ll</sub><sup>min</sup> mass bins within each SR<sup>offWZ</sup> category are summed together. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The figure shows the m<sub>T</sub><sup>m<sub>ll</sub>min</sup> distribution in (a) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj and (c) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and the |p<sub>T</sub><sup>lep</sup>|/E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> distribution in (d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj. The contributing m<sub>ll</sub><sup>min</sup> mass bins within each SR<sup>offWZ</sup> category are summed together. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The figure shows the m<sub>T</sub><sup>m<sub>ll</sub>min</sup> distribution in (a) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj and (c) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and the |p<sub>T</sub><sup>lep</sup>|/E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> distribution in (d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj. The contributing m<sub>ll</sub><sup>min</sup> mass bins within each SR<sup>offWZ</sup> category are summed together. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Kinematic distributions after the background-only fit showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The figure shows the m<sub>T</sub><sup>m<sub>ll</sub>min</sup> distribution in (a) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj and (c) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and the |p<sub>T</sub><sup>lep</sup>|/E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> distribution in (d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj. The contributing m<sub>ll</sub><sup>min</sup> mass bins within each SR<sup>offWZ</sup> category are summed together. The SR selections are applied for each distribution, except for the variable shown, for which the selection is indicated by an arrow. The last bin includes overflow. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from single-top, WW, triboson, Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Observed (N<sub>obs</sub>) yields after the discovery-fit and expected (N<sub>exp</sub>) after the background-only fit, for the inclusive SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ and $W\!h$ selections. The third and fourth column list the 95 CL upper limits on the visible cross-section (σ<sub>vis</sub><sup>95</sup>) and on the number of signal events (S<sub>obs</sub><sup>95</sup>). The fifth column (S<sub>exp</sub><sup>95</sup>) shows the 95 CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and ± 1σ excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the CLb value, i.e. the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis, and the discovery p-value (p(s = 0)). If the observed yield is below the expected yield, the p-value is capped at 0.5.
Observed (N<sub>obs</sub>) yields after the discovery-fit and expected (N<sub>exp</sub>) after the background-only fit, for the inclusive SRs of the onshell $W\!Z$ and $W\!h$ selections. The third and fourth column list the 95 CL upper limits on the visible cross-section (σ<sub>vis</sub><sup>95</sup>) and on the number of signal events (S<sub>obs</sub><sup>95</sup>). The fifth column (S<sub>exp</sub><sup>95</sup>) shows the 95 CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and ± 1σ excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the CLb value, i.e. the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis, and the discovery p-value (p(s = 0)). If the observed yield is below the expected yield, the p-value is capped at 0.5.
Observed (N<sub>obs</sub>) yields after the discovery-fit and expected (N<sub>exp</sub>) after the background-only fit, for the inclusive SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The third and fourth column list the 95 CL upper limits on the visible cross section (σ<sub>vis</sub><sup>95</sup>) and on the number of signal events (S<sub>obs</sub><sup>95</sup>). The fifth column (S<sub>exp</sub><sup>95</sup>) shows the 95 CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and ± 1σ excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the CLb value, i.e. the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis, and the discovery p-value (p(s = 0)). If the observed yield is below the expected yield, the p-value is capped at 0.5.
Observed (N<sub>obs</sub>) yields after the discovery-fit and expected (N<sub>exp</sub>) after the background-only fit, for the inclusive SRs of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection. The third and fourth column list the 95 CL upper limits on the visible cross section (σ<sub>vis</sub><sup>95</sup>) and on the number of signal events (S<sub>obs</sub><sup>95</sup>). The fifth column (S<sub>exp</sub><sup>95</sup>) shows the 95 CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and ± 1σ excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the CLb value, i.e. the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis, and the discovery p-value (p(s = 0)). If the observed yield is below the expected yield, the p-value is capped at 0.5.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated models in the (a,b) wino/bino (+) scenario, (c) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (d) the higgsino scenario. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>exp</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties. The statistical combination of the onshell $W\!Z$, offshell $W\!Z$, and compressed results is shown as the main contour, while the observed (expected) limits for each individual selection are overlaid in green, blue, and orange solid (dashed) lines, respectively. The exclusion is shown projected (a) onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane or (b,c,d) onto the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs Δm plane. The light grey area denotes (top) the constraints obtained by the previous equivalent analysis in ATLAS using the 8 TeV 20.3 fb<sup>-1</sup> dataset [17], and (d) the LEP lower χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup> mass limit [56]. The pale blue line in the top right panel represents the mass splitting range that yields a dark matter relic density equal to the observed relic density, Ω h<sup>2</sup>=0.1186±0.0020 [172], when the mass parameters of all the decoupled SUSY partners are set to 5 TeV and tanβ is chosen such that the SM-like Higgs boson mass is consistent with the observed value [43]. The area above (below) the blue line represents a dark-matter relic density larger (smaller) than the observed.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>{exp}</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>{exp}</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>{exp}</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>{exp}</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>{exp}</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>{exp}</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>{exp}</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>{exp}</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>{exp}</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>{exp}</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>{exp}</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$med in the wino/bino (+) scenario, calculated using the $W\!h$ SRs and projected onto the m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>, χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>) vs m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) plane. The expected 95 CL sensitivity (dashed black line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>{exp}</sub> (yellow band) from experimental systematic uncertainties and statistical uncertainties on the data yields, the observed limit (red solid line) is shown with ±1σ<sub>theory</sub> (dotted red lines) from signal cross-section uncertainties.
Comparison of the observed data and expected SM background yields in the CRs and VRs of the RJR selection. The SM prediction is taken from the background-only fit. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt̄, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. The hatched band indicates the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between the observed and expected yields, calculated with the profile likelihood method from [169], adding a minus sign if the yield is below the prediction.
Comparison of the observed data and expected SM background yields in the CRs and VRs of the RJR selection. The SM prediction is taken from the background-only fit. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt̄, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. The hatched band indicates the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between the observed and expected yields, calculated with the profile likelihood method from [169], adding a minus sign if the yield is below the prediction.
Observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in the SRs for the RJR selection. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt̄, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented.
Observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in the SRs for the RJR selection. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt̄, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented.
Example of kinematic distributions after the background-only fit, showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in regions of the RJR selection. The figure shows the (a) p<sub>T</sub><sup>ℓ<sub>1</sub></sup> and (b) H<sup>PP</sup><sub>3,1</sub> distributions in SR3ℓ-Low, and the (c) p<sup>CM</sup><sub>T ISR</sub> and (d) R<sub>ISR</sub> distributions in SR3ℓ-ISR. The last bin includes overflow. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt̄, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Example of kinematic distributions after the background-only fit, showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in regions of the RJR selection. The figure shows the (a) p<sub>T</sub><sup>ℓ<sub>1</sub></sup> and (b) H<sup>PP</sup><sub>3,1</sub> distributions in SR3ℓ-Low, and the (c) p<sup>CM</sup><sub>T ISR</sub> and (d) R<sub>ISR</sub> distributions in SR3ℓ-ISR. The last bin includes overflow. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt̄, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Example of kinematic distributions after the background-only fit, showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in regions of the RJR selection. The figure shows the (a) p<sub>T</sub><sup>ℓ<sub>1</sub></sup> and (b) H<sup>PP</sup><sub>3,1</sub> distributions in SR3ℓ-Low, and the (c) p<sup>CM</sup><sub>T ISR</sub> and (d) R<sub>ISR</sub> distributions in SR3ℓ-ISR. The last bin includes overflow. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt̄, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Example of kinematic distributions after the background-only fit, showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in regions of the RJR selection. The figure shows the (a) p<sub>T</sub><sup>ℓ<sub>1</sub></sup> and (b) H<sup>PP</sup><sub>3,1</sub> distributions in SR3ℓ-Low, and the (c) p<sup>CM</sup><sub>T ISR</sub> and (d) R<sub>ISR</sub> distributions in SR3ℓ-ISR. The last bin includes overflow. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt̄, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Example of kinematic distributions after the background-only fit, showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in regions of the RJR selection. The figure shows the (a) p<sub>T</sub><sup>ℓ<sub>1</sub></sup> and (b) H<sup>PP</sup><sub>3,1</sub> distributions in SR3ℓ-Low, and the (c) p<sup>CM</sup><sub>T ISR</sub> and (d) R<sub>ISR</sub> distributions in SR3ℓ-ISR. The last bin includes overflow. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt̄, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Example of kinematic distributions after the background-only fit, showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in regions of the RJR selection. The figure shows the (a) p<sub>T</sub><sup>ℓ<sub>1</sub></sup> and (b) H<sup>PP</sup><sub>3,1</sub> distributions in SR3ℓ-Low, and the (c) p<sup>CM</sup><sub>T ISR</sub> and (d) R<sub>ISR</sub> distributions in SR3ℓ-ISR. The last bin includes overflow. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt̄, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Example of kinematic distributions after the background-only fit, showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in regions of the RJR selection. The figure shows the (a) p<sub>T</sub><sup>ℓ<sub>1</sub></sup> and (b) H<sup>PP</sup><sub>3,1</sub> distributions in SR3ℓ-Low, and the (c) p<sup>CM</sup><sub>T ISR</sub> and (d) R<sub>ISR</sub> distributions in SR3ℓ-ISR. The last bin includes overflow. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt̄, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Example of kinematic distributions after the background-only fit, showing the data and the post-fit expected background, in regions of the RJR selection. The figure shows the (a) p<sub>T</sub><sup>ℓ<sub>1</sub></sup> and (b) H<sup>PP</sup><sub>3,1</sub> distributions in SR3ℓ-Low, and the (c) p<sup>CM</sup><sub>T ISR</sub> and (d) R<sub>ISR</sub> distributions in SR3ℓ-ISR. The last bin includes overflow. The "FNP leptons" category contains backgrounds from tt̄, tW, WW and Z+jets processes. The "Others" category contains backgrounds from Higgs and rare top processes. Distributions for wino/bino (+) χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> → $W\!Z$ signals are overlaid, with mass values given as (m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>),m(χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>)) GeV. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the predicted yields. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
{Results of the discovery-fit for the SRs of the RJR selection, calculated using pseudo-experiments.} The first and second column list the 95 CL upper limits on the visible cross section (σ<sub>vis</sub><sup>95</sup>) and on the number of signal events (S<sub>obs</sub><sup>95</sup>). The third column (S<sub>exp</sub><sup>95</sup>) shows the 95 CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and ± 1σ excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the CLb value, i.e. the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis, and the discovery p-value (p(s = 0)). If the observed yield is below the expected yield, the p-value is capped at 0.5. vspace{0.5em}
{Results of the discovery-fit for the SRs of the RJR selection, calculated using pseudo-experiments.} The first and second column list the 95 CL upper limits on the visible cross section (σ<sub>vis</sub><sup>95</sup>) and on the number of signal events (S<sub>obs</sub><sup>95</sup>). The third column (S<sub>exp</sub><sup>95</sup>) shows the 95 CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and ± 1σ excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the CLb value, i.e. the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis, and the discovery p-value (p(s = 0)). If the observed yield is below the expected yield, the p-value is capped at 0.5. vspace{0.5em}
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!Z$-mediated model, for the (1st and 2nd row) wino/bino (+) scenario, (3rd row) the wino/bino (-) scenario, and (4th row) the higgsino scenario, as in Figure 16. Black numbers represent the observed (a) and expected (b) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$-mediated model, for the wino/bino (+) scenario, as in Figure 17. The black numbers represent the observed (a,c,e,g) and expected (b,d,f,h) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$-mediated model, for the wino/bino (+) scenario, as in Figure 17. The black numbers represent the observed (a,c,e,g) and expected (b,d,f,h) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$-mediated model, for the wino/bino (+) scenario, as in Figure 17. The black numbers represent the observed (a,c,e,g) and expected (b,d,f,h) upper cross-section limits.
Exclusion limits obtained for the $W\!h$-mediated model, for the wino/bino (+) scenario, as in Figure 17. The black numbers represent the observed (a,c,e,g) and expected (b,d,f,h) upper cross-section limits.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c) truth-level acceptances and (b,d) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>nj</sub> regions of the onshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c) truth-level acceptances and (b,d) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>nj</sub> regions of the onshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c) truth-level acceptances and (b,d) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>nj</sub> regions of the onshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c) truth-level acceptances and (b,d) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>nj</sub> regions of the onshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c) truth-level acceptances and (b,d) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>nj</sub> regions of the onshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c) truth-level acceptances and (b,d) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>nj</sub> regions of the onshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c) truth-level acceptances and (b,d) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>nj</sub> regions of the onshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c) truth-level acceptances and (b,d) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>WZ</sup><sub>nj</sub> regions of the onshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-nj</sub>, and (e,f) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub> regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-nj</sub>, and (e,f) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub> regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-nj</sub>, and (e,f) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub> regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-nj</sub>, and (e,f) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub> regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-nj</sub>, and (e,f) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub> regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-nj</sub>, and (e,f) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub> regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-nj</sub>, and (e,f) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub> regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-nj</sub>, and (e,f) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub> regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-nj</sub>, and (e,f) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub> regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-nj</sub>, and (e,f) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub> regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-nj</sub>, and (e,f) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub> regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-0j</sub>, (c,d) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>low-m<sub>ll</sub>-nj</sub>, and (e,f) SR<sup>Wh</sup><sub>DF</sub> regions of the $W\!h$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (+) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the wino/bino (-) scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
The χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> (a,c,e,g) truth-level acceptances and (b,d,f,h) reconstruction efficiencies for the higgsino scenario, in the inclusive (a,b) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, (c,d) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, (e,f) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and (g,h) SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions of the offshell $W\!Z$ selection, after MC-to-data efficiency weights are applied.
Summary of onshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (300,200) GeV and m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (600,100) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal points, for the wino/bino (+) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks per inclusive regions, and then further for each SR. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5.
Summary of onshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (300,200) GeV and m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (600,100) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal points, for the wino/bino (+) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks per inclusive regions, and then further for each SR. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5.
Summary of $W\!h$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (190,60) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the wino/bino (+) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks per inclusive regions, and then further for each SR. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5.
Summary of $W\!h$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (190,60) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the wino/bino (+) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks per inclusive regions, and then further for each SR. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (250,235) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the wino/bino (+) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (250,235) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the wino/bino (+) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (125,85) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the wino/bino (+) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (125,85) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the wino/bino (+) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (250,170) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the wino/bino (+) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (250,170) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the wino/bino (+) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (250,235) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the wino/bino (-) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (250,235) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the wino/bino (-) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (125,85) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the wino/bino (-) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (125,85) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the wino/bino (-) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (250,170) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the wino/bino (-) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (250,170) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the wino/bino (-) interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (120,100) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the higgsino interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (120,100) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the higgsino interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (100,40) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the higgsino interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (100,40) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the higgsino interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (185,125) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the higgsino interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
Summary of offshell $W\!Z$ event selections for the m(χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup>,χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>0</sup>) = (185,125) GeV χ̃<sub>1</sub><sup>±</sup>/χ̃<sub>2</sub><sup>0</sup> signal point, for the higgsino interpretation. The yields are normalised to a luminosity of 139 fb<sup>-1</sup>, and MC-to-data efficiency weights from triggering and from the reconstruction and identification of individual physics objects are applied to the final yields in each signal region. After the initial selections, the table is split in row blocks for the inclusive SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-0j, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>lowETmiss</sub>-nj, SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-0j, and SR<sup>offWZ</sup><sub>highETmiss</sub>-nj regions, with the individual SR results in columns. The inclusive OR of regions a through g2 is given in the last column. Selection details per bin are indicated in bracketed blue as relevant, and the final yield for each SR is highlighted in bold green at the end of each block. The generator filters are discussed in detail in Section 4. The "3 isolated lepton selection" includes the common event selection as discussed in Section 5 and the initial SFOS lepton pair selection.
A search for pair production of bottom squarks in events with hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons, $b$-tagged jets and large missing transverse momentum is presented. The analyzed dataset is based on proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV delivered by the Large Hadron Collider and recorded by the ATLAS detector from 2015 to 2018, and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The observed data are compatible with the expected Standard Model background. Results are interpreted in a simplified model where each bottom squark is assumed to decay into the second-lightest neutralino $\tilde \chi_2^0$ and a bottom quark, with $\tilde \chi_2^0$ decaying into a Higgs boson and the lightest neutralino $\tilde \chi_1^0$. The search focuses on final states where at least one Higgs boson decays into a pair of hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons. This allows the acceptance and thus the sensitivity to be significantly improved relative to the previous results at low masses of the $\tilde \chi_2^0$, where bottom-squark masses up to 850 GeV are excluded at the 95% confidence level, assuming a mass difference of 130 GeV between $\tilde \chi_2^0$ and $\tilde \chi_1^0$. Model-independent upper limits are also set on the cross section of processes beyond the Standard Model.
The expected exclusion contour at $95\%$ CL as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Masses within the contour are excluded.
The observed exclusion contour at $95\%$ CL as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Masses within the contour are excluded.
Acceptance in the Single-bin SR as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.
Efficiency in the Single-bin SR as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta$ M(N2,N1) $= 130$ GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.
Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} < 0.5$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.
Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} < 0.5$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.
Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $0.5 < \min_{\Theta} < 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.
Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $0.5 < \min_{\Theta} < 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.
Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} > 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.
Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} > 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.
Observed upper limits on the signal cross section as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV.
Expected upper limits on the signal cross section as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV.
Cutflows for the bechmarl signal point M(Sbottom) = 800 GeV, M(N2) = 180 GeV. Weighted event yields are reported starting with the "Preselection" line, normalized to an integrated luminosity of $139$ fb$^{−1}$.
Comparison of the expected and observed event yields in the signal regions. The top-quark and Z(mumu) background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. The other contribution includes all the backgrounds not explicitly listed in the legend (V+jets except Z(mumu)+jets, di-/triboson, multijet). The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background. The contributions from three signal models to the signal regions are also displayed, where the masses M(Sbottom) and M(N2) are given in GeV in the legend. The lower panel shows the significance of the deviation of the observed yield from the expected background yield.
Dominant systematic uncertainties in the background prediction for the signal regions after the fit to the control regions. “Other” includes the uncertainties arising from muons, jet-vertex tagging, modeling of pile-up, the $E_{T}^{miss}$ computation, multijet background, and luminosity. The individual uncertainties can be correlated and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total uncertainty.
The results of a search for direct pair production of top squarks and for dark matter in events with two opposite-charge leptons (electrons or muons), jets and missing transverse momentum are reported, using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity from proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, collected by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider during Run 2 (2015-2018). This search considers the pair production of top squarks and is sensitive across a wide range of mass differences between the top squark and the lightest neutralino. Additionally, spin-0 mediator dark-matter models are considered, in which the mediator is produced in association with a pair of top quarks. The mediator subsequently decays to a pair of dark-matter particles. No significant excess of events is observed above the Standard Model background, and limits are set at 95% confidence level. The results exclude top squark masses up to about 1 TeV, and masses of the lightest neutralino up to about 500 GeV. Limits on dark-matter production are set for scalar (pseudoscalar) mediator masses up to about 250 (300) GeV.
Two-body selection. Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in $SR^{2-body}_{110,\infty}$ for (a) different-flavour and (b) same-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference dark-matter signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.
Two-body selection. Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in $SR^{2-body}_{110,\infty}$ for (a) different-flavour and (b) same-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference dark-matter signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Four-body selection. (a) distributions of $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Small\,\Delta m}$ and (b) distribution of $R_{2\ell 4j}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Large\,\Delta m}$ for events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panel indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Four-body selection. (a) distributions of $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Small\,\Delta m}$ and (b) distribution of $R_{2\ell 4j}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Large\,\Delta m}$ for events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panel indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the Observed limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}, DF}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}, SF}$ and $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t} Z}$. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Three-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{VR(1)}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$ and $\mathrm{VR(2)}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Four-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$,$\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $VR^{4-body}_{VV}$ and $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{VV,lll}$. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for the different-flavour leptons binned SRs. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for the same-flavour leptons binned SRs. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Three-body selection. Observed event yields and background fit results for the three-body selection SRs. The ''Others'' category contains contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Four-body selection. Observed event yields and background fit results for SR$^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{\mathrm{Small}\,\Delta m}$ and SR$^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{\mathrm{Large}\,\Delta m}$. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Exclusion limits contours (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with 100% branching ratio in $\tilde{t}_1--\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The exclusion limits contours for the two-body, three-body and four-body selections are respectively shown in blue, green and red.
Exclusion limits contours (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with 100% branching ratio in $\tilde{t}_1--\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The exclusion limits contours for the two-body, three-body and four-body selections are respectively shown in blue, green and red.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm 1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty.The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty.The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection Efficiency (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection Efficiency (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta\ m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection acceptance (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection acceptance (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Three-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal strenght for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Four-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal strenght for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Three-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Four-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for the $inclusive$ SRs. The Others category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=600~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=400~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the scalar signal model $t\bar{t} + \phi $ with $m(\phi)=150~ GeV$ and $m(\chi)=1~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the pseudoscalar signal model $t\bar{t} + a $ with $m(a)=150~ GeV$ and $m(\chi)=1~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=385~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=400~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=430~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=460~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=400~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=380~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=460~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=415~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=400~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=320~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Several extensions of the Standard Model predict the production of dark matter particles at the LHC. An uncharted signature of dark matter particles produced in association with $VV=W^\pm W^\mp$ or $ZZ$ pairs from a decay of a dark Higgs boson $s$ is searched for using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collisions recorded by the ATLAS detector at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The $s\to V(q\bar q)V(q\bar q)$ decays are reconstructed with a novel technique aimed at resolving the dense topology from boosted $VV$ pairs using jets in the calorimeter and tracking information. Dark Higgs scenarios with $m_s > 160$ GeV are excluded.
Data overlaid on SM background post-fit yields stacked in each SR and CR category and E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> bin with the maximum-likelihood estimators set to the conditional values of the CR-only fit, and propagated to SR and CRs. Pre-fit uncertainties cover differences between the data and pre-fit background prediction.
Dominant sources of uncertainty for three dark Higgs scenarios after the fit to Asimov data generated from the expected values of the maximum-likelihood estimators including predicted signals with m<sub>Z'</sub> = 1 TeV and m<sub>s</sub> of (a) 160 GeV, (b) 235 GeV, and (c) 310 GeV. The uncertainty in the fitted signal yield relative to the theory prediction is presented. Total is the quadrature sum of statistical and total systematic uncertainties, which consider correlations.
The ratios (μ) of the 95% C.L. upper limits on the combined s→ W<sup>±</sup>W<sup>∓</sup> and s→ ZZ cross section to simplified model expectations for the m<sub>Z'</sub>=0.5 TeV scenario, for various m<sub>s</sub> hypotheses. The observed limits (solid line) are consistent with the expectation under the SM-only hypothesis (dashed line) within uncertainties (filled band), except for a small excess for m<sub>s</sub>=160 GeV, discussed in the text.
The ratios (μ) of the 95% C.L. upper limits on the combined s→ W<sup>±</sup>W<sup>∓</sup> and s→ ZZ cross section to simplified model expectations for the m<sub>Z'</sub>=1 TeV scenario, for various m<sub>s</sub> hypotheses. The observed limits (solid line) are consistent with the expectation under the SM-only hypothesis (dashed line) within uncertainties (filled band), except for a small excess for m<sub>s</sub>=160 GeV, discussed in the text.
The ratios (μ) of the 95% C.L. upper limits on the combined s→ W<sup>±</sup>W<sup>∓</sup> and s→ ZZ cross section to simplified model expectations for the m<sub>Z'</sub>=1.7 TeV scenario, for various m<sub>s</sub> hypotheses. The observed limits (solid line) are consistent with the expectation under the SM-only hypothesis (dashed line) within uncertainties (filled band), except for a small excess for m<sub>s</sub>=160 GeV, discussed in the text.
Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m<sub>Z'</sub>=0.5 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m<sub>Z'</sub>=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.
Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m<sub>Z'</sub>=1 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m<sub>Z'</sub>=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.
Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m<sub>Z'</sub>=1.7 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m<sub>Z'</sub>=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.
SM background post-fit yields stacked in each SR and CR category and E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> bin and data overlaid with the maximum likelihood estimators set to the conditional values of the combined signal and control region fit. The hatched uncertainty band shown includes simulation statistics uncertainties, experimental systematic uncertainties, and V+jets theory modelling systematic uncertainties. Pre-fit uncertainties cover differences between the data and pre-fit background prediction.
Cumulative efficiencies for the merged category for signal samples with m<sub>s</sub>=160 GeV (a), m<sub>s</sub>=235 GeV (b) and m<sub>s</sub>=310 GeV (c), each with m<sub>Z'</sub>=1 TeV. The dark Higgs candidate selection includes stringent jet substructure requirements and typically at most one candidate is present in signal events. Here, Δ φ<sub>jets<sub>1,2,3</sub> E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup></sub> is the smallest azimuthal angle between the E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> and any of the three highest-p<sub>T</sub> (leading) small-R jets.
Cumulative efficiencies for the intermediate category for signal samples with m<sub>s</sub>=160 GeV (a), m<sub>s</sub>=235 GeV (b) and m<sub>s</sub>=310 GeV (c), each with m<sub>Z'</sub>=1 TeV. The TAR+Comb algorithm reconstructs the dark Higgs candidate from a TAR jet with m<sup>TAR</sup>>60 GeV that is supplemented by up to two additional small-R jets within ΔR<sub>cone</sub>=2.5 of the TAR jet. Here, Δ φ<sub>jets<sub>1,2,3</sub> E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup></sub> is the smallest azimuthal angle between the E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> and any of the three highest-p<sub>T</sub> (leading) small-R jets. For details see text.
The product of acceptance and efficiency (A × ϵ), defined as the number of signal events satisfying the full set of selection criteria in the merged or intermediate signal regions, divided by the total number of generated signal events, for the s(W<sup>±</sup>W<sup>∓</sup>) dark Higgs signal points with dark Higgs boson mass m<sub>s</sub> and Z' boson mass m<sub>Z'</sub>.
The product of acceptance and efficiency (A × ϵ), defined as the number of signal events satisfying the full set of selection criteria in the merged or intermediate signal regions, divided by the total number of generated signal events, for the s(ZZ) dark Higgs signal points with dark Higgs boson mass m<sub>s</sub> and Z' boson mass m<sub>Z'</sub>.
A search is presented for new phenomena in events characterised by high jet multiplicity, no leptons (electrons or muons), and four or more jets originating from the fragmentation of $b$-quarks ($b$-jets). The search uses 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider during Run 2. The dominant Standard Model background originates from multijet production and is estimated using a data-driven technique based on an extrapolation from events with low $b$-jet multiplicity to the high $b$-jet multiplicities used in the search. No significant excess over the Standard Model expectation is observed and 95% confidence-level limits that constrain simplified models of R-parity-violating supersymmetry are determined. The exclusion limits reach 950 GeV in top-squark mass in the models considered.
<b>- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - -</b> <br><br> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=stbchionly_obs">Stop to bottom quark and chargino exclusion contour (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=stbchionly_exp">Stop to bottom quark and chargino exclusion contour (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=stbchi_obs">Stop to higgsino LSP exclusion contour (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=stbchi_exp">Stop to higgsino LSP exclusion contour (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=sttN_obs">Stop to top quark and neutralino exclusion contour (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=sttN_exp">Stop to top quark and neutralino exclusion contour (Exp.)</a> </ul> <b>Upper limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=stbchionly_xSecUL_obs">Obs Xsection upper limit in stop to bottom quark and chargino</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_xSecUL_obs">Obs Xsection upper limit in higgsino LSP</a> <li><a href="?table=stbchionly_xSecUL_exp">Exp Xsection upper limit in stop to bottom quark and chargino</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_xSecUL_exp">Exp Xsection upper limit in higgsino LSP</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=SR_yields">SR_yields</a> </ul> <b>Cut flows:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=cutflow">cutflow</a> </ul> <b>Acceptance and efficiencies:</b> As explained in <a href="https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/SupersymmetryPublicResults#summary_of_auxiliary_material">the twiki</a>. <ul> <li> <b>stbchi_6je4be:</b> <a href="?table=stbchi_Acc_6je4be">stbchi_Acc_6je4be</a> <a href="?table=stbchi_Eff_6je4be">stbchi_Eff_6je4be</a> <li> <b>stbchi_7je4be:</b> <a href="?table=stbchi_Acc_7je4be">stbchi_Acc_7je4be</a> <a href="?table=stbchi_Eff_7je4be">stbchi_Eff_7je4be</a> <li> <b>stbchi_8je4be:</b> <a href="?table=stbchi_Acc_8je4be">stbchi_Acc_8je4be</a> <a href="?table=stbchi_Eff_8je4be">stbchi_Eff_8je4be</a> <li> <b>stbchi_9ji4be:</b> <a href="?table=stbchi_Acc_9ji4be">stbchi_Acc_9ji4be</a> <a href="?table=stbchi_Eff_9ji4be">stbchi_Eff_9ji4be</a> <li> <b>stbchi_6je5bi:</b> <a href="?table=stbchi_Acc_6je5bi">stbchi_Acc_6je5bi</a> <a href="?table=stbchi_Eff_6je5bi">stbchi_Eff_6je5bi</a> <li> <b>stbchi_7je5bi:</b> <a href="?table=stbchi_Acc_7je5bi">stbchi_Acc_7je5bi</a> <a href="?table=stbchi_Eff_7je5bi">stbchi_Eff_7je5bi</a> <li> <b>stbchi_8je5bi:</b> <a href="?table=stbchi_Acc_8je5bi">stbchi_Acc_8je5bi</a> <a href="?table=stbchi_Eff_8je5bi">stbchi_Eff_8je5bi</a> <li> <b>stbchi_9ji5bi:</b> <a href="?table=stbchi_Acc_9ji5bi">stbchi_Acc_9ji5bi</a> <a href="?table=stbchi_Eff_9ji5bi">stbchi_Eff_9ji5bi</a> <li> <b>stbchi_8ji5bi:</b> <a href="?table=stbchi_Acc_8ji5bi">stbchi_Acc_8ji5bi</a> <a href="?table=stbchi_Eff_8ji5bi">stbchi_Eff_8ji5bi</a> <li> <b>sttN_6je4be:</b> <a href="?table=sttN_Acc_6je4be">sttN_Acc_6je4be</a> <a href="?table=sttN_Eff_6je4be">sttN_Eff_6je4be</a> <li> <b>sttN_7je4be:</b> <a href="?table=sttN_Acc_7je4be">sttN_Acc_7je4be</a> <a href="?table=sttN_Eff_7je4be">sttN_Eff_7je4be</a> <li> <b>sttN_8je4be:</b> <a href="?table=sttN_Acc_8je4be">sttN_Acc_8je4be</a> <a href="?table=sttN_Eff_8je4be">sttN_Eff_8je4be</a> <li> <b>sttN_9ji4be:</b> <a href="?table=sttN_Acc_9ji4be">sttN_Acc_9ji4be</a> <a href="?table=sttN_Eff_9ji4be">sttN_Eff_9ji4be</a> <li> <b>sttN_6je5bi:</b> <a href="?table=sttN_Acc_6je5bi">sttN_Acc_6je5bi</a> <a href="?table=sttN_Eff_6je5bi">sttN_Eff_6je5bi</a> <li> <b>sttN_7je5bi:</b> <a href="?table=sttN_Acc_7je5bi">sttN_Acc_7je5bi</a> <a href="?table=sttN_Eff_7je5bi">sttN_Eff_7je5bi</a> <li> <b>sttN_8je5bi:</b> <a href="?table=sttN_Acc_8je5bi">sttN_Acc_8je5bi</a> <a href="?table=sttN_Eff_8je5bi">sttN_Eff_8je5bi</a> <li> <b>sttN_9ji5bi:</b> <a href="?table=sttN_Acc_9ji5bi">sttN_Acc_9ji5bi</a> <a href="?table=sttN_Eff_9ji5bi">sttN_Eff_9ji5bi</a> <li> <b>sttN_8ji5bi:</b> <a href="?table=sttN_Acc_8ji5bi">sttN_Acc_8ji5bi</a> <a href="?table=sttN_Eff_8ji5bi">sttN_Eff_8ji5bi</a> </ul> <b>Truth Code snippets</b> and <b>SLHA</a> files are available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contour are excluded. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded. Limits are shown for the region $m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1,2}, \tilde{\chi}^\pm_{1}} \geq m_\text{top}$ where $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1}) = B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow t \chi^{0}_{1,2}) = 0.5$.
Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.
Observed model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.
Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1})$ signal grid. Limits are shown for $B(\tilde{t} \rightarrow b \chi^{+}_{1})$ equal to unity.
Expected model-dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} / \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2})$ signal grid. Limits are shown in the case of a higgsino LSP. The results are constrained by the kinematic limits of the top-squark decay into a chargino and a bottom quark (upper diagonal line) and into a neutralino and a top quark (lower diagonal line), respectively.
Expected background and observed number of events in different jet and $b$-tag multiplicity bins.
Cut flow for a model of top-squark pair production with the top squark decaying to a $b$-quark and a chargino. The chargino decays through the non-zero RPV coupling $\lambda^{''}_{323}$ via a virtual top squark to $bbs$ quark triplets ($m_{\tilde{t}}$ = 800 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}}$ = 750 GeV). The multijet trigger consists of four jets satisfying $p_{\text{T}}\geq(100)120$ GeV for the 2015-2016 (2017-2018) data period. Selections with negligible inefficiencies on the given sample, such as data quality requirements, are not displayed. The numbers in $N_{\text{weighted}}$ are normalized by the integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the efficiency given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance for $\tilde{t} \rightarrow t\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2}(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1,2} \rightarrow tbs) / b\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1}(\tilde{\chi}^{+}_{1} \rightarrow \bar{b}\bar{b}\bar{s}) $ and c.c. model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is reported in %.
Results of a search for new particles decaying into eight or more jets and moderate missing transverse momentum are presented. The analysis uses 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton$-$proton collision data at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider between 2015 and 2018. The selection rejects events containing isolated electrons or muons, and makes requirements according to the number of $b$-tagged jets and the scalar sum of masses of large-radius jets. The search extends previous analyses both in using a larger dataset and by employing improved jet and missing transverse momentum reconstruction methods which more cleanly separate signal from background processes. No evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model is found. The results are interpreted in the context of supersymmetry-inspired simplified models, significantly extending the limits on the gluino mass in those models. In particular, limits on the gluino mass are set at 2 TeV when the lightest neutralino is nearly massless in a model assuming a two-step cascade decay via the lightest chargino and second-lightest neutralino.
Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin signal regions for the 8 jet regions.
Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin signal regions for the 9 jet regions.
Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin signal regions for the 10 jet regions.
Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin signal regions of the analysis.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.
$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Acceptance for the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.
Efficiency for the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.
Acceptance for the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.
Efficiency for the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.
Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.
Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.
Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.
Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.
Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.
Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.
Acceptance for the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.
Efficiency for the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.
Acceptance for the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.
Efficiency for the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.
Acceptance for the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.
Efficiency for the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.
The normalisation factors for the dominant backgrounds of the analysis in each of the multi-bin and single-bin regions.
Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin validation regions to test the $N_{\mathrm{jet}}$ extraction.
Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin validation regions to test the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ extrapolation.
Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin validation regions to test the $N_{\mathrm{jet}}$ extraction.
Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin validation regions to test the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ extrapolation.
The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the two-step decay.
The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the Gtt decay.
The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the RPV decay.
Number of events in each signal region broken down by background type and the number of observed data events.
From left to right; the $95\%$ CL upper limits on the visible cross section (${\langle \epsilon\sigma \rangle}^{95}_{obs}$) and on the number of signal events. Next is the $95\%$ CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number of background events. The last two columns show the confidence level for the background only hypothesis ($CL_{b}$) and the dicovery $p$-value along with the Gaussian significance (Z).
Visualisation of the highest jet multiplicity event selected in signal regions targeting long cascade decays of pair-produced gluinos. This event was recorded by ATLAS on 23 October 2016, and contains 16 jets, illustrated by cones. Yellow blocks represent the calorimeter energy measured in noise-suppressed clusters. Of the reconstructed jets, 13 (11) have transverse momenta above 50 GeV (80 GeV), with 3 (2) being b-tagged. The leading jet has a transverse momentum of 507 GeV, and the sum of jet transverse momenta $H_T=2.9$ TeV. A value of 343 GeV is observed for the $E_{T}^{miss}$, whose direction is shown by the dashed red line, producing a significance $S(E_{T}^{miss})=6.4$. The sum of the masses of large-radius jets is evaluated as $M_{J}^{\Sigma}=1070$ GeV.
Visualisation of the highest jet multiplicity event selected in a control region used to make predictions of the background from multijet production. This event was recorded by ATLAS on 18 July 2018, and contains 19 jets, illustrated by cones. Yellow blocks represent the calorimeter energy measured in in noise-suppressed clusters. Of the reconstructed jets, 16 (10) have transverse momenta above 50 GeV (80 GeV). No jets were b-tagged. The leading et has a transverse momentum of 371 GeV, and the sum of jet transverse momenta $H_T=2.2$ TeV. A value of 8 GeV is observed for the $E_{T}^{miss}$, whose direction is shown by the dashed red line, producing a significance $S(E_{T}^{miss})=0.2$. The sum of the masses of large-radius jets is evaluated as $M_{J}^{\Sigma}=767$ GeV.
In this paper, a new technique for reconstructing and identifying hadronically decaying $\tau^+\tau^-$ pairs with a large Lorentz boost, referred to as the di-$\tau$ tagger, is developed and used for the first time in the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. A benchmark di-$\tau$ tagging selection is employed in the search for resonant Higgs boson pair production, where one Higgs boson decays into a boosted $b\bar{b}$ pair and the other into a boosted $\tau^+\tau^-$ pair, with two hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons in the final state. Using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton$-$proton collision data recorded at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, the efficiency of the di-$\tau$ tagger is determined and the background with quark- or gluon-initiated jets misidentified as di-$\tau$ objects is estimated. The search for a heavy, narrow, scalar resonance produced via gluon$-$gluon fusion and decaying into two Higgs bosons is carried out in the mass range 1$-$3 TeV using the same dataset. No deviations from the Standard Model predictions are observed, and 95% confidence-level exclusion limits are set on this model.
Signal acceptance times selection efficiency as a function of the resonance mass, at various stages of the event selection. From top to bottom: an event pre-selection (trigger, object definitions and $E_{T}^{miss}>10$ GeV) is performed first; the requirements on the di-$\tau$ object and large-$R$ jet detailed in the text are then applied; finally, the $HH$ SR definition must be satisfied.
Signal acceptance times selection efficiency as a function of the resonance mass, at various stages of the event selection. From top to bottom: an event pre-selection (trigger, object definitions and $E_{T}^{miss}>10$ GeV) is performed first; the requirements on the di-$\tau$ object and large-$R$ jet detailed in the text are then applied; finally, the $HH$ SR definition must be satisfied.
Distribution of $m^{vis}_{HH}$ after applying all the event selection that define the $HH$ SR, except the requirement on $m^{vis}_{HH}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. The $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ signal is overlaid for two resonance mass hypotheses with a cross-section set to the expected limit, while all backgrounds are pre-fit. The first and the last bins contains the under-flow and over-flow bin entries, respectively. The hatched bands represent combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Distribution of $m^{vis}_{HH}$ after applying all the event selection that define the $HH$ SR, except the requirement on $m^{vis}_{HH}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. The $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ signal is overlaid for two resonance mass hypotheses with a cross-section set to the expected limit, while all backgrounds are pre-fit. The first and the last bins contains the under-flow and over-flow bin entries, respectively. The hatched bands represent combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Event yields of the various estimated backgrounds and data, computed in the signal region of the search for $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are quoted. The background yields and uncertainties are pre-fit and are found to be similar to those post-fit.
Event yields of the various estimated backgrounds and data, computed in the signal region of the search for $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are quoted. The background yields and uncertainties are pre-fit and are found to be similar to those post-fit.
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy, narrow-width, scalar resonance decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons ($X\rightarrow HH$). The final state used in the search consists of a boosted $b\bar{b}$ pair and a boosted hadronically decaying $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ pair, and the SM braching ratio of the Higgs boson are assumed. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit are indicated by the error bands. Two different requirements are applied on the visible mass of the two boosted Higgs boson candidates for the resonance mass hypotheses of 1.6 TeV and 2.5 TeV, leading to discontinuities in the limits (at 1.6 TeV, the difference between imposing no requirement and $m^{vis}_{HH}>900$ GeV is less than 1% though).
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy, narrow-width, scalar resonance decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons ($X\rightarrow HH$). The final state used in the search consists of a boosted $b\bar{b}$ pair and a boosted hadronically decaying $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ pair, and the SM braching ratio of the Higgs boson are assumed. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit are indicated by the error bands. Two different requirements are applied on the visible mass of the two boosted Higgs boson candidates for the resonance mass hypotheses of 1.6 TeV and 2.5 TeV, leading to discontinuities in the limits (at 1.6 TeV, the difference between imposing no requirement and $m^{vis}_{HH}>900$ GeV is less than 1% though).
A search for new-physics resonances decaying into a lepton and a jet performed by the ATLAS experiment is presented. Scalar leptoquarks pair-produced in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV at the Large Hadron Collider are considered using an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, corresponding to the full Run 2 dataset. They are searched for in events with two electrons or two muons and two or more jets, including jets identified as arising from the fragmentation of $c$- or $b$-quarks. The observed yield in each channel is consistent with the Standard Model background expectation. Leptoquarks with masses below 1.8 TeV and 1.7 TeV are excluded in the electron and muon channels, respectively, assuming a branching ratio into a charged lepton and a quark of 100%, with minimal dependence on the quark flavour. Upper limits on the aforementioned branching ratio are also given as a function of the leptoquark mass.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the pretag Signal Region of the $ qe$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the pretag Signal Region of the $ q\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the untagged Signal Region of the $ ce$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the c-tag Signal Region of the $ ce$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the b-tag Signal Region of the $ ce$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the untagged Signal Region of the $ c\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the c-tag Signal Region of the $ c\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the b-tag Signal Region of the $ c\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the 0-tag Signal Region of the $ be$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the 1-tag Signal Region of the $ be$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the 2-tag Signal Region of the $ be$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the 0-tag Signal Region of the $ b\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the 1-tag Signal Region of the $ b\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
Distribution of the resonance mass in the 2-tag Signal Region of the $ b\mu$ channel for the post-fit background, the observed data, and the expected signal with $m_{LQ} = 1$ TeV.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into electrons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $qe$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into muons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $q\mu$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into electrons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $ce$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into muons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $c\mu$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into electrons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $be$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark pair production cross-section at 95% CL for $\mathcal{B}=1$ into muons, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $b\mu$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $qe$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $q\mu$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $ce$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $c\mu$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $be$ channel.
The observed and expected limits on the leptoquark branching ratio at 95% CL, shown as a function of $m_{LQ}$ for the $b\mu$ channel.
The signal selection efficiency x acceptance summed over all signal regions, for all masses and LQ decay channels considered.
The observed and expected limits for all masses and LQ decay channels considered.
Cutflow Table in the electron channel, considering signal samples with LQ mass of 1 TeV.
Cutflow Table in the muon channel, considering signal samples with LQ mass of 1 TeV.
This paper describes a search for beyond the Standard Model decays of the Higgs boson into a pair of new spin-0 particles subsequently decaying into $b$-quark pairs, $H \rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b})$, using proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider at center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV. This search focuses on the regime where the decay products are collimated and in the range $15 \leq m_a \leq 30$ GeV and is complementary to a previous search in the same final state targeting the regime where the decay products are well separated and in the range $20 \leq m_a \leq 60$ GeV. A novel strategy for the identification of the $a \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decays is deployed to enhance the efficiency for topologies with small separation angles. The search is performed with 36 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity collected in 2015 and 2016 and sets upper limits on the production cross-section of $H \rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b})$, where the Higgs boson is produced in association with a $Z$ boson.
Summary of the 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ZH} BR(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$. Both observed and expected limits are listed. In the case of the expected limits, one- and two-standard-deviation uncertainty bands are also listed.
Summary of the 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ZH} BR(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$. Both observed and expected limits are listed. In the case of the expected limits, one- and two-standard-deviation uncertainty bands are also listed.
Summary of the observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ZH} BR(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ for the resolved analysis.
Summary of the 95% C.L. upper limits on $\sigma_{ZH} BR(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ for the dilepton channel in the resolved analysis. The observed limits are shown, together with the expected limits (dotted black lines). In the case of the expected limits, one- and two-standard-deviation uncertainty bands are also displayed. The data was published in JHEP 10 (2018) 031.
Efficiency and acceptance for simulated $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ samples in two signal regions (SR) of the analysis, one with two $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the High Purity Category (HPC), and the other with one $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidate in the High Purity Category (HPC) and one in the Low Purity Category (LPC).
Efficiency and acceptance for simulated $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ samples in two signal regions (SR) of the analysis, one with two $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the High Purity Category (HPC), and the other with one $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidate in the High Purity Category (HPC) and one in the Low Purity Category (LPC).
Event yields for a simulated $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ sample with $m_a = 17.5\,\text{GeV}$. The signal sample is produced with cross section equals to the standard model $pp\to ZH$, i.e. $0.88\,\text{pb}$. Cut 0 corresponds to the initial number of events. Cut 1 requires the single lepton trigger. Cut 2 requires 2 identified leptons. Cut 3 requires the Z-boson mass window. Cut 4 requires 2 reconstructed $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates. Cut 5a requires 2 identified $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region. Cut 6a requires the 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region to be inside the Higgs mass window. Cut 5b requires 2 identified $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region. Cut 6b requires the 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region to be inside the Higgs mass window.
Event yields for a simulated $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ sample with $m_a = 17.5\,\text{GeV}$. The signal sample is produced with cross section equals to the standard model $pp\to ZH$, i.e. $0.88\,\text{pb}$. Cut 0 corresponds to the initial number of events. Cut 1 requires the single lepton trigger. Cut 2 requires 2 identified leptons. Cut 3 requires the Z-boson mass window. Cut 4 requires 2 reconstructed $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates. Cut 5a requires 2 identified $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region. Cut 6a requires the 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region to be inside the Higgs mass window. Cut 5b requires 2 identified $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region. Cut 6b requires the 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region to be inside the Higgs mass window.
Background yield table for Z+jets, $t\bar{t}$, and rare sources. Observed data yield. Signal $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ yield with $m_a = 20\,\text{GeV}$. The signal sample is produced with cross section equals to the standard model $pp\to ZH$, i.e. $0.88\,\text{pb}$, with a branching ratio set to 1 for the $H \rightarrow aa$ decay, whereas the ATLAS figure attached to this entry instead uses the upper-limit branching ratio (smaller than 1). The table includes the yields in two signal regions with leptons consistent with an on-shell Z-boson decay, one with 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region and one with 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region. The table also includes the yields in four control regions, one with leptons consistent with an on-shell Z-boson decay and 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the Low Purity Category (LPC), and three others where the leptons are not consistent an on-shell Z-boson decay.
Background yield table for Z+jets, $t\bar{t}$, and rare sources. Observed data yield. Signal $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ yield with $m_a = 20\,\text{GeV}$. The signal sample is produced with cross section equals to the standard model $pp\to ZH$, i.e. $0.88\,\text{pb}$. The table includes the yields in two signal regions with leptons consistent with an on-shell Z-boson decay, one with 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region and one with 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region. The table also includes the yields in four control regions, one with leptons consistent with an on-shell Z-boson decay and 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the Low Purity Category (LPC), and three others where the leptons are not consistent an on-shell Z-boson decay.
A search for direct pair production of scalar partners of the top quark (top squarks or scalar third-generation up-type leptoquarks) in the all-hadronic $t\bar{t}$ plus missing transverse momentum final state is presented. The analysis of 139 fb$^{-1}$ of ${\sqrt{s}=13}$ TeV proton-proton collision data collected using the ATLAS detector at the LHC yields no significant excess over the Standard Model background expectation. To interpret the results, a supersymmetric model is used where the top squark decays via $\tilde{t} \to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi}^0_1$, with $t^{(*)}$ denoting an on-shell (off-shell) top quark and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ the lightest neutralino. Three specific event selections are optimised for the following scenarios. In the scenario where $m_{\tilde{t}}> m_t+m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$, top squark masses are excluded in the range 400-1250 GeV for $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses below $200$ GeV at 95 % confidence level. In the situation where $m_{\tilde{t}}\sim m_t+m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$, top squark masses in the range 300-630 GeV are excluded, while in the case where $m_{\tilde{t}}< m_W+m_b+m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ (with $m_{\tilde{t}}-m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}\ge 5$ GeV), considered for the first time in an ATLAS all-hadronic search, top squark masses in the range 300-660 GeV are excluded. Limits are also set for scalar third-generation up-type leptoquarks, excluding leptoquarks with masses below $1240$ GeV when considering only leptoquark decays into a top quark and a neutrino.
<b>- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - -</b> <br><br> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=stop_obs">Stop exclusion contour (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_obs_down">Stop exclusion contour (Obs. Down)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_obs_up">Stop exclusion contour (Obs. Up)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_exp">Stop exclusion contour (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_exp_down">Stop exclusion contour (Exp. Down)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_exp_up">Stop exclusion contour (Exp. Up)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_obs">LQ3u exclusion contour (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_obs_down">LQ3u exclusion contour (Obs. Down)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_obs_up">LQ3u exclusion contour (Obs. Up)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_exp">LQ3u exclusion contour (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_exp_down">LQ3u exclusion contour (Exp. Down)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_exp_up">LQ3u exclusion contour (Exp. Up)</a> </ul> <b>Upper limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=stop_xSecUpperLimit_obs">stop_xSecUpperLimit_obs</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_xSecUpperLimit_exp">stop_xSecUpperLimit_exp</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_xSecUpperLimit_obs">LQ3u_xSecUpperLimit_obs</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_xSecUpperLimit_exp">LQ3u_xSecUpperLimit_exp</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=SRATW_metsigST">SRATW_metsigST</a> <li><a href="?table=SRBTT_m_1fatjet_kt12">SRBTT_m_1fatjet_kt12</a> <li><a href="?table=SRC_RISR">SRC_RISR</a> <li><a href="?table=SRD0_htSig">SRD0_htSig</a> <li><a href="?table=SRD1_htSig">SRD1_htSig</a> <li><a href="?table=SRD2_htSig">SRD2_htSig</a> </ul> <b>Cut flows:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRATT">cutflow_SRATT</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRATW">cutflow_SRATW</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRAT0">cutflow_SRAT0</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRB">cutflow_SRB</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRC">cutflow_SRC</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRD0">cutflow_SRD0</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRD1">cutflow_SRD1</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRD2">cutflow_SRD2</a> </ul> <b>Acceptance and efficiencies:</b> As explained in <a href="https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/SupersymmetryPublicResults#summary_of_auxiliary_material">the twiki</a>. <ul> <li> <b>SRATT:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRATT">Acc_SRATT</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRATT">Eff_SRATT</a> <li> <b>SRATW:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRATW">Acc_SRATW</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRATW">Eff_SRATW</a> <li> <b>SRAT0:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRAT0">Acc_SRAT0</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRAT0">Eff_SRAT0</a> <li> <b>SRBTT:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRBTT">Acc_SRBTT</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRBTT">Eff_SRBTT</a> <li> <b>SRBTW:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRBTW">Acc_SRBTW</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRBTW">Eff_SRBTW</a> <li> <b>SRBT0:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRBT0">Acc_SRBT0</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRBT0">Eff_SRBT0</a> <li> <b>SRC1:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC1">Acc_SRC1</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC1">Eff_SRC1</a> <li> <b>SRC2:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC2">Acc_SRC2</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC2">Eff_SRC2</a> <li> <b>SRC3:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC3">Acc_SRC3</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC3">Eff_SRC3</a> <li> <b>SRC4:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC4">Acc_SRC4</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC4">Eff_SRC4</a> <li> <b>SRC5:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC5">Acc_SRC5</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC5">Eff_SRC5</a> <li> <b>SRD0:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRD0">Acc_SRD0</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRD0">Eff_SRD0</a> <li> <b>SRD1:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRD1">Acc_SRD1</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRD1">Eff_SRD1</a> <li> <b>SRD2:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRD2">Acc_SRD2</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRD2">Eff_SRD2</a> </ul> <b>Truth Code snippets</b> and <b>SLHA</a> files are available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
<b>- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - -</b> <br><br> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=stop_obs">Stop exclusion contour (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_obs_down">Stop exclusion contour (Obs. Down)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_obs_up">Stop exclusion contour (Obs. Up)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_exp">Stop exclusion contour (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_exp_down">Stop exclusion contour (Exp. Down)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_exp_up">Stop exclusion contour (Exp. Up)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_obs">LQ3u exclusion contour (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_obs_down">LQ3u exclusion contour (Obs. Down)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_obs_up">LQ3u exclusion contour (Obs. Up)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_exp">LQ3u exclusion contour (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_exp_down">LQ3u exclusion contour (Exp. Down)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_exp_up">LQ3u exclusion contour (Exp. Up)</a> </ul> <b>Upper limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=stop_xSecUpperLimit_obs">stop_xSecUpperLimit_obs</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_xSecUpperLimit_exp">stop_xSecUpperLimit_exp</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_xSecUpperLimit_obs">LQ3u_xSecUpperLimit_obs</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_xSecUpperLimit_exp">LQ3u_xSecUpperLimit_exp</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=SRATW_metsigST">SRATW_metsigST</a> <li><a href="?table=SRBTT_m_1fatjet_kt12">SRBTT_m_1fatjet_kt12</a> <li><a href="?table=SRC_RISR">SRC_RISR</a> <li><a href="?table=SRD0_htSig">SRD0_htSig</a> <li><a href="?table=SRD1_htSig">SRD1_htSig</a> <li><a href="?table=SRD2_htSig">SRD2_htSig</a> </ul> <b>Cut flows:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRATT">cutflow_SRATT</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRATW">cutflow_SRATW</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRAT0">cutflow_SRAT0</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRB">cutflow_SRB</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRC">cutflow_SRC</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRD0">cutflow_SRD0</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRD1">cutflow_SRD1</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRD2">cutflow_SRD2</a> </ul> <b>Acceptance and efficiencies:</b> As explained in <a href="https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/SupersymmetryPublicResults#summary_of_auxiliary_material">the twiki</a>. <ul> <li> <b>SRATT:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRATT">Acc_SRATT</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRATT">Eff_SRATT</a> <li> <b>SRATW:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRATW">Acc_SRATW</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRATW">Eff_SRATW</a> <li> <b>SRAT0:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRAT0">Acc_SRAT0</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRAT0">Eff_SRAT0</a> <li> <b>SRBTT:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRBTT">Acc_SRBTT</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRBTT">Eff_SRBTT</a> <li> <b>SRBTW:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRBTW">Acc_SRBTW</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRBTW">Eff_SRBTW</a> <li> <b>SRBT0:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRBT0">Acc_SRBT0</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRBT0">Eff_SRBT0</a> <li> <b>SRC1:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC1">Acc_SRC1</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC1">Eff_SRC1</a> <li> <b>SRC2:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC2">Acc_SRC2</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC2">Eff_SRC2</a> <li> <b>SRC3:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC3">Acc_SRC3</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC3">Eff_SRC3</a> <li> <b>SRC4:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC4">Acc_SRC4</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC4">Eff_SRC4</a> <li> <b>SRC5:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC5">Acc_SRC5</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC5">Eff_SRC5</a> <li> <b>SRD0:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRD0">Acc_SRD0</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRD0">Eff_SRD0</a> <li> <b>SRD1:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRD1">Acc_SRD1</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRD1">Eff_SRD1</a> <li> <b>SRD2:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRD2">Acc_SRD2</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRD2">Eff_SRD2</a> </ul> <b>Truth Code snippets</b> and <b>SLHA</a> files are available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contour are excluded.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contour are excluded.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.
Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.
Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.
Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.
Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.
The distributions of $S$ in SRA-TW. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $S$ in SRA-TW. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $\it{m}^{\mathrm{R=1.2}}_{1}$ in SRB-TT. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $\it{m}^{\mathrm{R=1.2}}_{1}$ in SRB-TT. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of R$_{ISR}$ in SRC signal regions before R$_{ISR}$ cuts are applied. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of R$_{ISR}$ in SRC signal regions before R$_{ISR}$ cuts are applied. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD0. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD0. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD1. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD1. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD2. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD2. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TT. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TT. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TW. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TW. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-T0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-T0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (700,400)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in signal regions SRB-TT, SRB-TW and SRB-T0. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 60000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (700,400)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in signal regions SRB-TT, SRB-TW and SRB-T0. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 60000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (500,327)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in regions SRC-1, SRC-2, SRC-3, SRC-4 and SRC-5. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 150000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.384 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (500,327)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in regions SRC-1, SRC-2, SRC-3, SRC-4 and SRC-5. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 150000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.384 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD1. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD1. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD2. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD2. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Signal acceptance in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
A search for heavy neutral Higgs bosons is performed using the LHC Run 2 data, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector. The search for heavy resonances is performed over the mass range 0.2-2.5 TeV for the $\tau^+\tau^-$ decay with at least one $\tau$-lepton decaying into final states with hadrons. The data are in good agreement with the background prediction of the Standard Model. In the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, values of $\tan\beta>8$ and $\tan\beta>21$ are excluded at the 95% confidence level for neutral Higgs boson masses of 1.0 TeV and 1.5 TeV, respectively, where $\tan\beta$ is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of 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.The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of 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.The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of 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.The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of 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.The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of 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. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of 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. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of 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. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of 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. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of 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 combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of 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 combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of 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 combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of 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 combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of 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 combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of 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 combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of 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 combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of 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 combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
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 Higgs boson mass.
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 Higgs boson mass.
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 Higgs boson mass.
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 Higgs boson mass.
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 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 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 b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching 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 scalar 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. 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. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The observed 95% CL upper limits with one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
A search for supersymmetry through the pair production of electroweakinos with mass splittings near the electroweak scale and decaying via on-shell $W$ and $Z$ bosons is presented for a three-lepton final state. The analyzed proton-proton collision data taken at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV were collected between 2015 and 2018 by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. A search, emulating the recursive jigsaw reconstruction technique with easily reproducible laboratory-frame variables, is performed. The two excesses observed in the 2015-2016 data recursive jigsaw analysis in the low-mass three-lepton phase space are reproduced. Results with the full dataset are in agreement with the Standard Model expectations. They are interpreted to set exclusion limits at 95% confidence level on simplified models of chargino-neutralino pair production for masses up to 345 GeV.
Distributions in SR-low of the data and post-fit background prediction for m<sub>T</sub>. The SR-low event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-low of the data and post-fit background prediction for m<sub>T</sub>. The SR-low event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-low of the data and post-fit background prediction for H<sup>boost</sup>. The SR-low event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-low of the data and post-fit background prediction for H<sup>boost</sup>. The SR-low event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-low of the data and post-fit background prediction for m<sub>eff</sub><sup>3ℓ</sup>/H<sup>boost</sup>. The SR-low event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-low of the data and post-fit background prediction for m<sub>eff</sub><sup>3ℓ</sup>/H<sup>boost</sup>. The SR-low event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-low of the data and post-fit background prediction for p<sub>T</sub><sup>soft</sup>/(p<sub>T</sub><sup>soft</sup> + m<sub>eff</sub><sup>3ℓ</sup>). The SR-low event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-low of the data and post-fit background prediction for p<sub>T</sub><sup>soft</sup>/(p<sub>T</sub><sup>soft</sup> + m<sub>eff</sub><sup>3ℓ</sup>). The SR-low event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-ISR of the data and post-fit background prediction for m<sub>T</sub>. The SR-ISR event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-ISR of the data and post-fit background prediction for m<sub>T</sub>. The SR-ISR event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-ISR of the data and post-fit background prediction for R(E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup>,jets). The SR-ISR event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-ISR of the data and post-fit background prediction for R(E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup>,jets). The SR-ISR event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-ISR of the data and post-fit background prediction for p<sub>T</sub><sup>soft</sup>. The SR-ISR event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-ISR of the data and post-fit background prediction for p<sub>T</sub><sup>soft</sup>. The SR-ISR event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-ISR of the data and post-fit background prediction for p<sub>T</sub><sup>jets</sup>. The SR-ISR event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Distributions in SR-ISR of the data and post-fit background prediction for p<sub>T</sub><sup>jets</sup>. The SR-ISR event selections are applied for each distribution except for the variable shown, where the selection is indicated by a red arrow. The normalization factor for the WZ background is derived from the background-only estimation described in Section 7. The expected distribution for a benchmark signal model is included for comparison. The first (last) bin includes underflow (overflow). The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. The bottom panel shows the ratio of the data to the post-fit background prediction. The hatched bands indicate the combined theoretical, experimental, and MC statistical uncertainties.
Observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Plus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty, on the observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Plus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty, on the observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Minus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty, on the observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Minus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty, on the observed exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Plus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, due to uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties affecting the signal, on the expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Plus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, due to uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties affecting the signal, on the expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Minus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, due to uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties affecting the signal, on the expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Minus 1$\sigma$ uncertainty, due to uncertainties in the background prediction and experimental uncertainties affecting the signal, on the expected exclusion contour on C1N2 production assuming on-shell $W/Z$ decays as a function of the C1/N2 and N1 masses, and derived from the combined fit of low-mass and ISR regions.
Upper limits on observed wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{obs}^\text{95}$.
Upper limits on observed wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{obs}^\text{95}$.
Upper limits on expected wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{exp}^\text{95}$.
Upper limits on expected wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{exp}^\text{95}$.
Signal acceptance in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} \geq 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-low, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal acceptance in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
Signal efficiency in SR-ISR, for signals with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}) - m\widetilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} < 100$ GeV.
The observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in the SRs. The normalization factors of the $WZ$ sample for the low-mass and ISR regions are different and are treated separately in the combined fit. \The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented. The individual uncertainties can be correlated and do not necessarily add in quadrature to equal the total background uncertainty.
The observed and expected yields after the background-only fit in the SRs. The normalization factors of the $WZ$ sample for the low-mass and ISR regions are different and are treated separately in the combined fit. \The "Top-quark like" category contains the tt̄, Wt, and WW processes while the "Others" category contains backgrounds from triboson production and processes that include a Higgs boson, 3 or more tops, and tops produced in association with W or Z bosons. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are presented. The individual uncertainties can be correlated and do not necessarily add in quadrature to equal the total background uncertainty.
Summary of the expected background and data yields in $\text{SR-low}$ and $\text{SR-ISR}$. The second and third columns show the data and total expected background with systematic uncertainties. The fourth column gives the model-independent upper limits at 95\% CL on the visible cross section ($\sigma_\text{vis}$). The fifth and sixth columns give the visible number of observed ($S^{95}_\text{obs}$) and expected ($S^{95}_\text{exp}$) events of a generic beyond-the-SM process, where uncertainties on $S^{95}_\text{exp}$ reflect the $\pm 1 \sigma$ uncertainties on the background estimation. The last column shows the discovery $p$-value and Gaussian significance $Z$ assuming no signal.
Summary of the expected background and data yields in $\text{SR-low}$ and $\text{SR-ISR}$. The second and third columns show the data and total expected background with systematic uncertainties. The fourth column gives the model-independent upper limits at 95\% CL on the visible cross section ($\sigma_\text{vis}$). The fifth and sixth columns give the visible number of observed ($S^{95}_\text{obs}$) and expected ($S^{95}_\text{exp}$) events of a generic beyond-the-SM process, where uncertainties on $S^{95}_\text{exp}$ reflect the $\pm 1 \sigma$ uncertainties on the background estimation. The last column shows the discovery $p$-value and Gaussian significance $Z$ assuming no signal.
Upper limits on observed (expected) wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{obs(exp)}^\text{95}$.
Upper limits on observed (expected) wino-bino simplified model signal cross section $\sigma_\text{obs(exp)}^\text{95}$.
Full list of event selections and MC generator-weighted yields and in $\text{SR-ISR}$ for the main $WZ$ background and a representative $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ signal point of mass 200 GeV and mass splitting $\Delta m = 100$ GeV normalized to 139 fb$^{-1}$. 40000 events were generated.
Full list of event selections and MC generator-weighted yields and in $\text{SR-ISR}$ for the main $WZ$ background and a representative $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ signal point of mass 200 GeV and mass splitting $\Delta m = 100$ GeV normalized to 139 fb$^{-1}$. 40000 events were generated.
Full list of event selections and MC generator-weighted yields and in $\text{SR-low}$ for the main $WZ$ background and a representative $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ signal point of mass 200 GeV and mass splitting $\Delta m = 100$ GeV normalized to 139 fb$^{-1}$. 40000 events were generated.
Full list of event selections and MC generator-weighted yields and in $\text{SR-low}$ for the main $WZ$ background and a representative $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ signal point of mass 200 GeV and mass splitting $\Delta m = 100$ GeV normalized to 139 fb$^{-1}$. 40000 events were generated.
A search for the direct production of the supersymmetric partners of $\tau$-leptons (staus) in final states with two hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons is presented. The analysis uses a dataset of $pp$ collisions corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $139$ fb$^{-1}$, recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. No significant deviation from the expected Standard Model background is observed. Limits are derived in scenarios of direct production of stau pairs with each stau decaying into the stable lightest neutralino and one $\tau$-lepton in simplified models where the two stau mass eigenstates are degenerate. Stau masses from 120 GeV to 390 GeV are excluded at 95% confidence level for a massless lightest neutralino.
The observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for simplified models with combined ${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production. Three points at ${M({\tilde{\chi}}^{0}_{1})}=200GeV$ were removed from the plot but kept in the table because they overlapped with the plot's legend and are far from the exclusion contour.
The observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for simplified models with combined ${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production. Three points at ${M({\tilde{\chi}}^{0}_{1})}=200GeV$ were removed from the plot but kept in the table because they overlapped with the plot's legend and are far from the exclusion contour.
The observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for simplified models with ${\tilde{\tau}}_L {\tilde{\tau}}_L$ only production. Three points at $M({\tilde{\chi}}^{0}_{1})=200GeV$ were removed from the plot but kept in the table because they overlapped with the plot's legend and are far from the exclusion contour.
The observed upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for simplified models with ${\tilde{\tau}}_L {\tilde{\tau}}_L$ only production. Three points at $M({\tilde{\chi}}^{0}_{1})=200GeV$ were removed from the plot but kept in the table because they overlapped with the plot's legend and are far from the exclusion contour.
The observed 95\% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with combined ${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production.
The observed 95\% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with combined ${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production.
The expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with combined ${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production.
The expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with combined ${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production.
The observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with ${\tilde{\tau}}_L {\tilde{\tau}}_L$ only production.
The observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with ${\tilde{\tau}}_L {\tilde{\tau}}_L$ only production.
The expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with ${\tilde{\tau}}_L {\tilde{\tau}}_L$ only production.
The expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the combined fit of SR-lowMass and SR-highMass for simplified models with ${\tilde{\tau}}_L {\tilde{\tau}}_L$ only production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-lowMass.
Observed 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-lowMass.
Expected 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-lowMass.
Expected 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-lowMass.
Observed 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-highMass.
Observed 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-highMass.
Expected 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-highMass.
Expected 95% CL exclusion limits for simplified models with direct stau pair production in SR-highMass.
Signal acceptance in SR highMass for combined stau final states
Signal acceptance in SR highMass for combined stau final states
Signal acceptance in SR lowMass for combined stau final states
Signal acceptance in SR lowMass for combined stau final states
Signal efficiency in SR highMass for combined stau final states
Signal efficiency in SR highMass for combined stau final states
Signal efficiency in SR lowMass for combined stau final states
Signal efficiency in SR lowMass for combined stau final states
Signal acceptance*efficiency in SR highMass for combined stau final states
Signal acceptance*efficiency in SR highMass for combined stau final states
Signal acceptance*efficiency in SR lowMass for combined stau final states
Signal acceptance*efficiency in SR lowMass for combined stau final states
Cutflow for two reference points (${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production) in SR. The column labelled $N_{weighted}$ shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$, while $N_{raw}$ in brackets shows the results for the generated number of events. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only. The "Generator filter" includes the requirements that two $\tau$ in the event have ${p}_{T} > 15$ GeV and $|\eta| <$ 2.6. The "Baseline Cut" includes the requirement of two baseline $\tau$ with a minimum value at 0.01 of the boosted decision tree discriminant (JetBDTSigTransMin $>$ 0.01) and ${p}_{T, \tau_{1}} > 50$ GeV and ${p}_{T, \tau_{2}} > 40$ GeV. At the step "Trigger & offline cuts", the following requirements are applied: the event is recorded using the asymmetric di-$\tau$ trigger (di-$\tau$ $E_{T}^{miss}$ trigger) in SR-lowMass (SR-highMass), and the lepton $p_{T}$ and $E_{T}^{miss}$ are required at plateau.
Cutflow for two reference points (${\tilde{\tau}}^{+}_{R,L} {\tilde{\tau}}^{-}_{R,L}$ production) in SR. The column labelled $N_{weighted}$ shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$, while $N_{raw}$ in brackets shows the results for the generated number of events. The quoted uncertainties are statistical only. The "Generator filter" includes the requirements that two $\tau$ in the event have ${p}_{T} > 15$ GeV and $|\eta| <$ 2.6. The "Baseline Cut" includes the requirement of two baseline $\tau$ with a minimum value at 0.01 of the boosted decision tree discriminant (JetBDTSigTransMin $>$ 0.01) and ${p}_{T, \tau_{1}} > 50$ GeV and ${p}_{T, \tau_{2}} > 40$ GeV. At the step "Trigger & offline cuts", the following requirements are applied: the event is recorded using the asymmetric di-$\tau$ trigger (di-$\tau$ $E_{T}^{miss}$ trigger) in SR-lowMass (SR-highMass), and the lepton $p_{T}$ and $E_{T}^{miss}$ are required at plateau.
Observed and expected numbers of events in the control and signal regions where all control and signal region bins are included as constraints in the likelihood. The expected event yields of SM processes are given after the background-only fit. The entries marked as "--" are negligible. The uncertainties correspond to the sum in quadrature of statistical and systematic uncertainties. The correlation of systematic uncertainties among control regions and among background processes is fully taken into account.
Observed and expected numbers of events in the control and signal regions where all control and signal region bins are included as constraints in the likelihood. The expected event yields of SM processes are given after the background-only fit. The entries marked as "--" are negligible. The uncertainties correspond to the sum in quadrature of statistical and systematic uncertainties. The correlation of systematic uncertainties among control regions and among background processes is fully taken into account.
The post-fit $m_{T2}$ distribution for SR-lowMass. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the ABCD method. The contributions of multi-jet and $W$+jets events are scaled with the corresponding normalization factors derived from the background-only fit. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions from the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The last bin includes the overflow events.
The post-fit $m_{T2}$ distribution for SR-lowMass. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the ABCD method. The contributions of multi-jet and $W$+jets events are scaled with the corresponding normalization factors derived from the background-only fit. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions from the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The last bin includes the overflow events.
The post-fit $m_{T2}$ distribution for SR-highMass. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the ABCD method. The contributions of multi-jet and $W$+jets events are scaled with the corresponding normalization factors derived from the background-only fit. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions from the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The last bin includes the overflow events.
The post-fit $m_{T2}$ distribution for SR-highMass. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the ABCD method. The contributions of multi-jet and $W$+jets events are scaled with the corresponding normalization factors derived from the background-only fit. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions from the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The last bin includes the overflow events.
The $m_{T2}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation region VR-F (lowMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The $m_{T2}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation region VR-F (lowMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The $m_{T2}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation VR-F (highMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The $m_{T2}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation VR-F (highMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The $E_{T}^{miss}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation region VR-F (lowMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The $E_{T}^{miss}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation region VR-F (lowMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The $E_{T}^{miss}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation region VR-F (highMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The $E_{T}^{miss}$ post-fit distributions in the multi-jet background validation region VR-F (highMass). The stacked histograms show the contribution of each relevant SM process. The multi-jet shape is taken from VR-E in the ABCD method and the normalization is determined by the transfer factor $T$ and rescaled by a correction factor determined by the fit. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties in the sum of the SM backgrounds shown. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The pre-fit $m_{T2}$ distribution in the $WCR$. The SM backgrounds other than multi-jet production are estimated from MC simulation. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the OS--SS method. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The pre-fit $m_{T2}$ distribution in the $WCR$. The SM backgrounds other than multi-jet production are estimated from MC simulation. The multi-jet contribution is estimated from data using the OS--SS method. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines.
The post-fit yields in the $WVR$, $TVRs$, $ZVRs$ and $VVVRs$. The SM backgrounds other than multi-jet production are estimated from MC simulation. The multi-jet contribution is negligible and is estimated from data using the ABCD method, using CRs obtained with the same technique used for the SRs. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the SM background estimate.
The post-fit yields in the $WVR$, $TVRs$, $ZVRs$ and $VVVRs$. The SM backgrounds other than multi-jet production are estimated from MC simulation. The multi-jet contribution is negligible and is estimated from data using the ABCD method, using CRs obtained with the same technique used for the SRs. The hatched bands represent the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distributions of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The lower panels show the ratio of data to the SM background estimate.
The results of a search for electroweakino pair production $pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2$ in which the chargino ($\tilde\chi^\pm_1$) decays into a $W$ boson and the lightest neutralino ($\tilde\chi^0_1$), while the heavier neutralino ($\tilde\chi^0_2$) decays into the Standard Model 125 GeV Higgs boson and a second $\tilde\chi^0_1$ are presented. The signal selection requires a pair of $b$-tagged jets consistent with those from a Higgs boson decay, and either an electron or a muon from the $W$ boson decay, together with missing transverse momentum from the corresponding neutrino and the stable neutralinos. The analysis is based on data corresponding to 139 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV $pp$ collisions provided by the Large Hadron Collider and recorded by the ATLAS detector. No statistically significant evidence of an excess of events above the Standard Model expectation is found. Limits are set on the direct production of the electroweakinos in simplified models, assuming pure wino cross-sections. Masses of $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ up to 740 GeV are excluded at 95% confidence level for a massless $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
A search for supersymmetric partners of gluons and quarks is presented, involving signatures with jets and either two isolated leptons (electrons or muons) with the same electric charge, or at least three isolated leptons. A data sample of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider between 2015 and 2018, corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, is used for the search. No significant excess over the Standard Model expectation is observed. The results are interpreted in simplified supersymmetric models featuring both R-parity conservation and R-parity violation, raising the exclusion limits beyond those of previous ATLAS searches to 1600 GeV for gluino masses and 750 GeV for bottom and top squark masses in these scenarios.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g \to q \bar{q}^{'} \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \to W^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $ \tilde{\chi}_2^0 \to Z \tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g \to q \bar{q}^{'} \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \to W^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $ \tilde{\chi}_2^0 \to Z \tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g \to q \bar{q}^{'} \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \to W^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $ \tilde{\chi}_2^0 \to Z \tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g \to q \bar{q}^{'} \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \to W^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $ \tilde{\chi}_2^0 \to Z \tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L0b, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 1200 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 1000 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L0b, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 1200 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 1000 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L0b, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 1200 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 1000 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L0b, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 1200 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 1000 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 850 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 500 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 400 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 850 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 500 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 400 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 850 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 500 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 400 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 850 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 500 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 400 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L2b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 850 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 500 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 400 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L2b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 900 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 150 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 50 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L2b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 900 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 150 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 50 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L2b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 900 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 150 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 50 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc3LSS1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{t}^{}_1)$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 625 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)\approx m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 525 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc3LSS1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{t}^{}_1)$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 625 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)\approx m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 525 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc3LSS1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{t}^{}_1)$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 625 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)\approx m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 525 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc3LSS1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{t}^{}_1)$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 625 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)\approx m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 525 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t}^{}_{1})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t}^{}_{1})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t}^{}_{1})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t}^{}_{1})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Signal acceptance for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Signal acceptance for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Signal acceptance for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Signal acceptance for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Signal acceptance for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Signal acceptance for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Signal efficiency for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Signal efficiency for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Signal efficiency for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Signal efficiency for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Signal efficiency for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Signal efficiency for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Best observed 95% CL exclusion contours selected from Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Best observed 95% CL exclusion contours selected from Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Best observed 95% CL exclusion contours selected from Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Best observed 95% CL exclusion contours selected from Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L0b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L0b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L0b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L0b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L1b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L1b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L1b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L1b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L2b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L2b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L2b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L2b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpv2L from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpv2L from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpv2L from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpv2L from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
A search for the electroweak production of charginos and sleptons decaying into final states with two electrons or muons is presented. The analysis is based on 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions recorded by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV. Three $R$-parity-conserving scenarios where the lightest neutralino is the lightest supersymmetric particle are considered: the production of chargino pairs with decays via either $W$ bosons or sleptons, and the direct production of slepton pairs. The analysis is optimised for the first of these scenarios, but the results are also interpreted in the others. No significant deviations from the Standard Model expectations are observed and limits at 95 % confidence level are set on the masses of relevant supersymmetric particles in each of the scenarios. For a massless lightest neutralino, masses up to 420 GeV are excluded for the production of the lightest-chargino pairs assuming $W$-boson-mediated decays and up to 1 TeV for slepton-mediated decays, whereas for slepton-pair production masses up to 700 GeV are excluded assuming three generations of mass-degenerate sleptons.
- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - - <br/><br/> <b>Background Fit results:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit1">CRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit2">VRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit5">inclusive DF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit6">inclusive DF-1J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit3">inclusive SF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit4">inclusive SF-1J SRs</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions in VRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics1">$m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics2">$m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics3">$E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics4">$E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics5">$E_T^{miss}$ sig in VR-VZ</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics6">$E_T^{miss}$ sig in VR-top-WW</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions in SRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=SRkinematics1">$m_{T2}$ in SR-SF-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=SRkinematics2">$m_{T2}$ in SR-SF-1J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=SRkinematics3">$m_{T2}$ in SR-DF-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=SRkinematics4">$m_{T2}$ in SR-DF-1J</a> </ul> <b>Systematic uncertaities:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Systematic uncertainties">dominant systematic uncertainties in the inclusive SRs</a> </ul> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)1">expected exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)1">observed exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)2">expected exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)2">observed exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)3">expected exclusion contour direct slepton-pair production grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)3">observed exclusion contour direct slepton-pair production grid</a> </ul> <br/><br/><b>AUXILIARY MATERIAL</b><br/> <b>Background Fit in binned SRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit7">binned DF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit8">binned DF-1J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit9">binned SF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit10">binned SF-1J SRs</a> </ul> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)4">expected exclusion contour left-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)4">observed exclusion contour left-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)5">expected exclusion contour right-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)5">observed exclusion contour right-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)6">expected exclusion contour selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)6">observed exclusion contour selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)7">expected exclusion contour left-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)7">observed exclusion contour left-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)8">expected exclusion contour right-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)8">observed exclusion contour right-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)9">expected exclusion contour smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)9">observed exclusion contour smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)10">expected exclusion contour left-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)10">observed exclusion contour left-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)11">expected exclusion contour right-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)11">observed exclusion contour right-handed smuon-pair production</a> </ul> <b>Cross section upper limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=xsecupperlimits1">upper limits on signal cross section for direct chargino-pair production via W decay</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=xsecupperlimits2">upper limits on signal cross section for direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=xsecupperlimits3">upper limits on signal cross section for direct slepton-pair production</a> </ul> <b>Acceptances and Efficiencies for direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid </b> <ul> <li> <b>Acceptance</b> <br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <li> <b>Efficiency</b> <br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> </ul> <b>Cutflow:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Cutflow1">Cutflow for direct chargino-pair production via W decay $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(300,50) GeV$</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Cutflow1">Cutflow for direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{l},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(600,300,1) GeV$</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Cutflow1">Cutflow for direct slepton-pair production $m(\tilde{l},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(400,200) GeV$</a> </ul> <b>Truth Code snippets</b> are available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - - <br/><br/> <b>Background Fit results:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit1">CRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit2">VRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit5">inclusive DF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit6">inclusive DF-1J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit3">inclusive SF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit4">inclusive SF-1J SRs</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions in VRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics1">$m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics2">$m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics3">$E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics4">$E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics5">$E_T^{miss}$ sig in VR-VZ</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics6">$E_T^{miss}$ sig in VR-top-WW</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions in SRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=SRkinematics1">$m_{T2}$ in SR-SF-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=SRkinematics2">$m_{T2}$ in SR-SF-1J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=SRkinematics3">$m_{T2}$ in SR-DF-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=SRkinematics4">$m_{T2}$ in SR-DF-1J</a> </ul> <b>Systematic uncertaities:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Systematic uncertainties">dominant systematic uncertainties in the inclusive SRs</a> </ul> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)1">expected exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)1">observed exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)2">expected exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)2">observed exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)3">expected exclusion contour direct slepton-pair production grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)3">observed exclusion contour direct slepton-pair production grid</a> </ul> <br/><br/><b>AUXILIARY MATERIAL</b><br/> <b>Background Fit in binned SRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit7">binned DF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit8">binned DF-1J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit9">binned SF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit10">binned SF-1J SRs</a> </ul> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)4">expected exclusion contour left-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)4">observed exclusion contour left-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)5">expected exclusion contour right-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)5">observed exclusion contour right-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)6">expected exclusion contour selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)6">observed exclusion contour selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)7">expected exclusion contour left-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)7">observed exclusion contour left-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)8">expected exclusion contour right-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)8">observed exclusion contour right-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)9">expected exclusion contour smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)9">observed exclusion contour smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)10">expected exclusion contour left-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)10">observed exclusion contour left-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)11">expected exclusion contour right-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)11">observed exclusion contour right-handed smuon-pair production</a> </ul> <b>Cross section upper limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=xsecupperlimits1">upper limits on signal cross section for direct chargino-pair production via W decay</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=xsecupperlimits2">upper limits on signal cross section for direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=xsecupperlimits3">upper limits on signal cross section for direct slepton-pair production</a> </ul> <b>Acceptances and Efficiencies for direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid </b> <ul> <li> <b>Acceptance</b> <br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <li> <b>Efficiency</b> <br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> </ul> <b>Cutflow:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Cutflow1">Cutflow for direct chargino-pair production via W decay $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(300,50) GeV$</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Cutflow1">Cutflow for direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{l},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(600,300,1) GeV$</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Cutflow1">Cutflow for direct slepton-pair production $m(\tilde{l},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(400,200) GeV$</a> </ul> <b>SimpleAnalysis framework implementation</b> of the search SRs is available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - - <br/><br/> <b>Background Fit results:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 1">CRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 2">VRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 5">inclusive DF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 6">inclusive DF-1J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 3">inclusive SF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 4">inclusive SF-1J SRs</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions in VRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=VR kinematics 1">$m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=VR kinematics 2">$m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=VR kinematics 3">$E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=VR kinematics 4">$E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=VR kinematics 5">$E_T^{miss}$ sig in VR-VZ</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=VR kinematics 6">$E_T^{miss}$ sig in VR-top-WW</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions in SRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=SR kinematics 1">$m_{T2}$ in SR-SF-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=SR kinematics 2">$m_{T2}$ in SR-SF-1J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=SR kinematics 3">$m_{T2}$ in SR-DF-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=SR kinematics 4">$m_{T2}$ in SR-DF-1J</a> </ul> <b>Systematic uncertaities:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Systematic uncertainties">dominant systematic uncertainties in the inclusive SRs</a> </ul> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 1">expected exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 1">observed exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 2">expected exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 2">observed exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 3">expected exclusion contour direct slepton-pair production grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 3">observed exclusion contour direct slepton-pair production grid</a> </ul> <br/><br/><b>AUXILIARY MATERIAL</b><br/> <b>Background Fit in binned SRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 7">binned DF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 8">binned DF-1J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 9">binned SF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 10">binned SF-1J SRs</a> </ul> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 4">expected exclusion contour left-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 4">observed exclusion contour left-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 5">expected exclusion contour right-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 5">observed exclusion contour right-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 6">expected exclusion contour selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 6">observed exclusion contour selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 7">expected exclusion contour left-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 7">observed exclusion contour left-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 8">expected exclusion contour right-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 8">observed exclusion contour right-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 9">expected exclusion contour smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 9">observed exclusion contour smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 10">expected exclusion contour left-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 10">observed exclusion contour left-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 11">expected exclusion contour right-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 11">observed exclusion contour right-handed smuon-pair production</a> </ul> <b>Cross section upper limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=xsec upper limits 1">upper limits on signal cross section for direct chargino-pair production via W decay</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=xsec upper limits 2">upper limits on signal cross section for direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=xsec upper limits 3">upper limits on signal cross section for direct slepton-pair production</a> </ul> <b>Acceptances and Efficiencies for direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid </b> <ul> <li> <b>Acceptance</b> <br/> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <li> <b>Efficiency</b> <br/> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> </ul> <b>Cutflow:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Cutflow 1">Cutflow for direct chargino-pair production via W decay $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(300,50) GeV$</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Cutflow 2">Cutflow for direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{l},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(600,300,1) GeV$</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Cutflow 3">Cutflow for direct slepton-pair production $m(\tilde{l},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(400,200) GeV$</a> </ul> <b>SimpleAnalysis framework implementation</b> of the search SRs is available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - - <br/><br/> <b>Background Fit results:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Background fit 1">CRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Background fit 2">VRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Background fit 5">inclusive DF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Background fit 6">inclusive DF-1J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Background fit 3">inclusive SF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Background fit 4">inclusive SF-1J SRs</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions in VRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=VR kinematics 1">$m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=VR kinematics 2">$m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=VR kinematics 3">$E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=VR kinematics 4">$E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=VR kinematics 5">$E_T^{miss}$ sig in VR-VZ</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=VR kinematics 6">$E_T^{miss}$ sig in VR-top-WW</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions in SRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=SR kinematics 1">$m_{T2}$ in SR-SF-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=SR kinematics 2">$m_{T2}$ in SR-SF-1J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=SR kinematics 3">$m_{T2}$ in SR-DF-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=SR kinematics 4">$m_{T2}$ in SR-DF-1J</a> </ul> <b>Systematic uncertaities:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Systematic uncertainties">dominant systematic uncertainties in the inclusive SRs</a> </ul> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 1">expected exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 1">observed exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 2">expected exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 2">observed exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 3">expected exclusion contour direct slepton-pair production grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 3">observed exclusion contour direct slepton-pair production grid</a> </ul> <br/><br/><b>AUXILIARY MATERIAL</b><br/> <b>Background Fit in binned SRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Background fit 7">binned DF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Background fit 8">binned DF-1J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Background fit 9">binned SF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Background fit 10">binned SF-1J SRs</a> </ul> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 4">expected exclusion contour left-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 4">observed exclusion contour left-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 5">expected exclusion contour right-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 5">observed exclusion contour right-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 6">expected exclusion contour selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 6">observed exclusion contour selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 7">expected exclusion contour left-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 7">observed exclusion contour left-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 8">expected exclusion contour right-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 8">observed exclusion contour right-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 9">expected exclusion contour smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 9">observed exclusion contour smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 10">expected exclusion contour left-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 10">observed exclusion contour left-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 11">expected exclusion contour right-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 11">observed exclusion contour right-handed smuon-pair production</a> </ul> <b>Cross section upper limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=xsec upper limits 1">upper limits on signal cross section for direct chargino-pair production via W decay</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=xsec upper limits 2">upper limits on signal cross section for direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=xsec upper limits 3">upper limits on signal cross section for direct slepton-pair production</a> </ul> <b>Acceptances and Efficiencies for direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid </b> <ul> <li> <b>Acceptance</b> <br/> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <li> <b>Efficiency</b> <br/> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=4&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> </ul> <b>Cutflow:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Cutflow 1">Cutflow for direct chargino-pair production via W decay $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(300,50) GeV$</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Cutflow 2">Cutflow for direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{l},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(600,300,1) GeV$</a> <li><a href="89413?version=4&table=Cutflow 3">Cutflow for direct slepton-pair production $m(\tilde{l},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(400,200) GeV$</a> </ul> <b>SimpleAnalysis framework implementation</b> of the search SRs is available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit for the CRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit for the CRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit for the CRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit for the CRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields in the VRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields in the VRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields in the VRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields in the VRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-VZ for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-VZ for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-VZ for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-VZ for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-top-WW for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-top-WW for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-top-WW for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-top-WW for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the inclusive SRs requiring $m_{T2}$>100 GeV after performing the profile likelihood fit. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty. The percentages show the size of the uncertainty relative to the total expected background. "Top theoretical uncertainties" refers to $t\bar t$ theoretical uncertainties and the uncertainty associated to $Wt-t\bar t$ interference added quadratically.
Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the inclusive SRs requiring $m_{T2}$>100 GeV after performing the profile likelihood fit. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty. The percentages show the size of the uncertainty relative to the total expected background. "Top theoretical uncertainties" refers to $t\bar t$ theoretical uncertainties and the uncertainty associated to $Wt-t\bar t$ interference added quadratically.
Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the inclusive SRs requiring $m_{T2}$>100 GeV after performing the profile likelihood fit. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty. The percentages show the size of the uncertainty relative to the total expected background. "Top theoretical uncertainties" refers to $t\bar t$ theoretical uncertainties and the uncertainty associated to $Wt-t\bar t$ interference added quadratically.
Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the inclusive SRs requiring $m_{T2}$>100 GeV after performing the profile likelihood fit. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty. The percentages show the size of the uncertainty relative to the total expected background. "Top theoretical uncertainties" refers to $t\bar t$ theoretical uncertainties and the uncertainty associated to $Wt-t\bar t$ interference added quadratically.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with W -boson-mediated decays.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with W -boson-mediated decays.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with W -boson-mediated decays.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with W -boson-mediated decays.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino-mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino-mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino-mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino-mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for slepton-pair production.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for slepton-pair production.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for slepton-pair production.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for slepton-pair production.
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via $W^{\pm}W^{\mp}$. The masses of the two charginos are 300 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 50 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via $W^{\pm}W^{\mp}$. The masses of the two charginos are 300 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 50 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via $W^{\pm}W^{\mp}$. The masses of the two charginos are 300 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 50 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via $W^{\pm}W^{\mp}$. The masses of the two charginos are 300 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 50 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via slepton-neutrino/sneutrino-lepton pair. The masses of the two charginos are 600 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 1 GeV. The slepton/sneutrino masses are 300 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via slepton-neutrino/sneutrino-lepton pair. The masses of the two charginos are 600 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 1 GeV. The slepton/sneutrino masses are 300 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via slepton-neutrino/sneutrino-lepton pair. The masses of the two charginos are 600 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 1 GeV. The slepton/sneutrino masses are 300 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via slepton-neutrino/sneutrino-lepton pair. The masses of the two charginos are 600 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 1 GeV. The slepton/sneutrino masses are 300 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde\ell\tilde\ell$ are produced. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered in this model. The masses of the two sleptons are 400 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 200 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde\ell\tilde\ell$ are produced. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered in this model. The masses of the two sleptons are 400 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 200 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde\ell\tilde\ell$ are produced. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered in this model. The masses of the two sleptons are 400 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 200 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde\ell\tilde\ell$ are produced. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered in this model. The masses of the two sleptons are 400 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 200 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
A search for long-lived particles decaying into an oppositely charged lepton pair, $\mu\mu$, $ee$, or $e\mu$, is presented using 32.8 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data collected at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV by the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Candidate leptons are required to form a vertex, within the inner tracking volume of ATLAS, displaced from the primary $pp$ interaction region. No lepton pairs with an invariant mass greater than 12 GeV are observed, consistent with the background expectations derived from data. The detection efficiencies for generic resonances with lifetimes ($c\tau$) of 100-1000 mm decaying into a dilepton pair with masses between 0.1-1.0 TeV are presented as a function of $p_T$ and decay radius of the resonances to allow the extraction of upper limits on the cross sections for theoretical models. The result is also interpreted in a supersymmetric model in which the lightest neutralino, produced via squark-antisquark production, decays into $\ell^{+}\ell^{'-}\nu$ ($\ell, \ell^{'} = e$, $\mu$) with a finite lifetime due to the presence of R-parity violating couplings. Cross-section limits are presented for specific squark and neutralino masses. For a 700 GeV squark, neutralinos with masses of 50-500 GeV and mean proper lifetimes corresponding to $c\tau$ values between 1 mm to 6 m are excluded. For a 1.6 TeV squark, $c\tau$ values between 3 mm to 1 m are excluded for 1.3 TeV neutralinos.
<h1>Overview of reinterpretation material</h1><p><b>Important note:</b> A detailed explanation of the reinterpretation material can be found <a href="https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/SUSY-2017-04/hepdata_info.pdf">here</a>.<br/>Please read this stand-alone document before reinterpreting the search.</p><h2>Parameterized detection efficiencies</h2><p>RPV SUSY model: Tables <a href="90606?version=1&table=Table27">27</a> to <a href="90606?version=1&table=Table44">44</a><br/>Z' toy model: Tables <a href="90606?version=1&table=Table45">45</a> to <a href="90606?version=1&table=Table59">59</a></p><h2>Further material for the RPV SUSY model</h2><p>Acceptances: Tables <a href="90606?version=1&table=Table18">18</a> (ee), <a href="90606?version=1&table=Table19">19</a> (emu) and <a href="90606?version=1&table=Table20">20</a> (mumu)<br/>Detection efficiencies: Tables <a href="90606?version=1&table=Table21">21</a> (ee), <a href="90606?version=1&table=Table22">22</a> (emu) and <a href="90606?version=1&table=Table23">23</a> (mumu)<br/>Overall signal efficiencies: Tables <a href="90606?version=1&table=Table24">24</a> (ee), <a href="90606?version=1&table=Table25">25</a> (emu) and <a href="90606?version=1&table=Table26">26</a> (mumu)</p><h2>Further material for the Z' toy model</h2><p>Acceptances, detection efficiencies and overall signal efficiencies: Tables <a href="90606?version=1&table=Table60">60</a> (mZ' = 100 GeV) to <a href="90606?version=1&table=Table64">64</a> (mZ' = 1000 GeV)</p>
dRcos distribution of dimuon pairs (scaled) and dimuon vertices in the cosmic rays control region. The distribution of all dimuon pairs is scaled to the DV distribution.
Dependence of the overall signal efficiency on the transverse decay radius Rxy of the long-lived Z' for Z' -> ee. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.
Dependence of the overall signal efficiency on the pT of the long-lived Z' for Z' -> ee. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.
Dependence of the overall signal efficiency on the transverse decay radius Rxy of the long-lived Z' for Z' -> emu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.
Dependence of the overall signal efficiency on the pT of the long-lived Z' for Z' -> emu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.
Dependence of the overall signal efficiency on the transverse decay radius Rxy of the long-lived Z' for Z' -> mumu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.
Dependence of the overall signal efficiency on the pT of the long-lived Z' for Z' -> mumu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.
Overall signal efficiency as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda121 scenario of the RPV SUSY model. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.
Overall signal efficiency as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda122 scenario of the RPV SUSY model. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.
95% CL upper limits on the squark-antisquark production cross-section as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda121 scenario of the RPV SUSY model and a 700 GeV squark. The uncertainties of the expected limit indicate the +-1sigma variations.
95% CL upper limits on the squark-antisquark production cross-section as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda122 scenario of the RPV SUSY model and a 700 GeV squark. The uncertainties of the expected limit indicate the +-1sigma variations.
95% CL upper limits on the squark-antisquark production cross-section as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda121 scenario of the RPV SUSY model and a 1600 GeV squark. The uncertainties of the expected limit indicate the +-1sigma variations.
95% CL upper limits on the squark-antisquark production cross-section as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for the lambda122 scenario of the RPV SUSY model and a 1600 GeV squark. The uncertainties of the expected limit indicate the +-1sigma variations.
Fraction of detector volume covered by the material veto as a function of z and Rxy of the displaced dilepton vertex.
Fraction of detector volume covered by the disabled pixel modules veto veto as a function of z and Rxy of the displaced dilepton vertex.
Observed Rxy distribution of vertices composed of two non-leptonic tracks in a control sample in the data and the predicted distribution obtained from the event mixing. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.
Rxy distributions of Kshort vertices from the large radius tracking in the data and background MC samples. Data has been normalised such that the total number of Kshort from the standard tracking in the data agrees with the total number of Kshort from the standard tracking in the MC. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.
Acceptance per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> eenu. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.
Acceptance per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> emunu. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.
Acceptance per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> mumunu. The error bars indicate the statistical uncertainties.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> eenu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> emunu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> mumunu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.
Overall signal efficiency (acceptance times efficiency) per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> eenu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.
Overall signal efficiency (acceptance times efficiency) per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> emunu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.
Overall signal efficiency (acceptance times efficiency) per decay as a function of the mean proper lifetime (ctau) of the neutralino for neutralino -> mumunu. The error bars indicate the total uncertainties.
Detection efficiency per decay for Rxy < 22 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.
Detection efficiency per decay for 22 <= Rxy < 38 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.
Detection efficiency per decay for 38 <= Rxy < 73 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.
Detection efficiency per decay for 73 <= Rxy < 111 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.
Detection efficiency per decay for 111 <= Rxy < 145 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.
Detection efficiency per decay for 145 <= Rxy < 300 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron pair in LLP -> eeX.
Detection efficiency per decay for Rxy < 22 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.
Detection efficiency per decay for 22 <= Rxy < 38 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.
Detection efficiency per decay for 38 <= Rxy < 73 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.
Detection efficiency per decay for 73 <= Rxy < 111 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.
Detection efficiency per decay for 111 <= Rxy < 145 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.
Detection efficiency per decay for 145 <= Rxy < 300 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the electron and muon pair in LLP -> emuX.
Detection efficiency per decay for Rxy < 22 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.
Detection efficiency per decay for 22 <= Rxy < 38 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.
Detection efficiency per decay for 38 <= Rxy < 73 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.
Detection efficiency per decay for 73 <= Rxy < 111 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.
Detection efficiency per decay for 111 <= Rxy < 145 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.
Detection efficiency per decay for 145 <= Rxy < 300 mm as a function of the invariant mass and pT of the muon pair in LLP -> mumuX.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 100 GeV and LLP -> ee.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 100 GeV and LLP -> emu.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 100 GeV and LLP -> mumu.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 250 GeV and LLP -> ee.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 250 GeV and LLP -> emu.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 250 GeV and LLP -> mumu.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 500 GeV and LLP -> ee.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 500 GeV and LLP -> emu.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 500 GeV and LLP -> mumu.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 750 GeV and LLP -> ee.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 750 GeV and LLP -> emu.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 750 GeV and LLP -> mumu.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 1000 GeV and LLP -> ee.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 1000 GeV and LLP -> emu.
Detection efficiency per decay as a function of the transverse decay radius Rxy and the dilepton pT for a LLP mass of 1000 GeV and LLP -> mumu.
Acceptance, detection efficiency, and overall signal efficiency in the Z' toy model for mZ' = 100 GeV, three mean proper lifetimes (ctau) and the three decay modes of the Z'.
Acceptance, detection efficiency, and overall signal efficiency in the Z' toy model for mZ' = 250 GeV, three mean proper lifetimes (ctau) and the three decay modes of the Z'.
Acceptance, detection efficiency, and overall signal efficiency in the Z' toy model for mZ' = 500 GeV, three mean proper lifetimes (ctau) and the three decay modes of the Z'.
Acceptance, detection efficiency, and overall signal efficiency in the Z' toy model for mZ' = 750 GeV, three mean proper lifetimes (ctau) and the three decay modes of the Z'.
Acceptance, detection efficiency, and overall signal efficiency in the Z' toy model for mZ' = 1000 GeV, three mean proper lifetimes (ctau) and the three decay modes of the Z'.
A search for a heavy charged-boson resonance decaying into a charged lepton (electron or muon) and a neutrino is reported. A data sample of 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV collected with the ATLAS detector at the LHC during 2015-2018 is used in the search. The observed transverse mass distribution computed from the lepton and missing transverse momenta is consistent with the distribution expected from the Standard Model, and upper limits on the cross section for $pp \to W^\prime \to \ell\nu$ are extracted ($\ell = e$ or $\mu$). These vary between 1.3 pb and 0.05 fb depending on the resonance mass in the range between 0.15 and 7.0 TeV at 95% confidence level for the electron and muon channels combined. Gauge bosons with a mass below 6.0 TeV and 5.1 TeV are excluded in the electron and muon channels, respectively, in a model with a resonance that has couplings to fermions identical to those of the Standard Model $W$ boson. Cross-section limits are also provided for resonances with several fixed $\Gamma / m$ values in the range between 1% and 15%. Model-independent limits are derived in single-bin signal regions defined by a varying minimum transverse mass threshold. The resulting visible cross-section upper limits range between 4.6 (15) pb and 22 (22) ab as the threshold increases from 130 (110) GeV to 5.1 (5.1) TeV in the electron (muon) channel.
Transverse mass distribution for events satisfying all selection criteria in the electron channel.
Transverse mass distribution for events satisfying all selection criteria in the muon channel.
Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM $W^\prime$ production and decay to the electron+neutrino channel as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM $W^\prime$ production and decay to the muon+neutrino channel as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Combined (electron and muon channels) upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM $W^\prime$ production and decay to a single lepton generation as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to the electron+neutrino channel as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to the muon+neutrino channel as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Combined (electron and muon channels) observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to a single lepton generation as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the visible cross section in the electron+neutrino channel as a function of the transverse mass threshold.
Observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the visible cross section in the muon+neutrino channel as a function of the transverse mass threshold.
Product of acceptance and efficiency for the electron and muon selections as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Expected upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to the electron+neutrino channel as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Expected upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to the muon+neutrino channel as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Combined (electron and muon channels) expected upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to a single lepton generation as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
A search for heavy charged long-lived particles is performed using a data sample of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. The search is based on observables related to ionization energy loss and time of flight, which are sensitive to the velocity of heavy charged particles traveling significantly slower than the speed of light. Multiple search strategies for a wide range of lifetimes, corresponding to path lengths of a few meters, are defined as model-independently as possible, by referencing several representative physics cases that yield long-lived particles within supersymmetric models, such as gluinos/squarks ($R$-hadrons), charginos and staus. No significant deviations from the expected Standard Model background are observed. Upper limits at 95% confidence level are provided on the production cross sections of long-lived $R$-hadrons as well as directly pair-produced staus and charginos. These results translate into lower limits on the masses of long-lived gluino, sbottom and stop $R$-hadrons, as well as staus and charginos of 2000 GeV, 1250 GeV, 1340 GeV, 430 GeV and 1090 GeV, respectively.
- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - - <br/><br/> <b>Lower mass requirement for signal regions.</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table1">Gluinos and squarks</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table2">Staus and charginos</a></li> </ul> <b>Discovery regions:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table3">Yields</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table6">p0-values and limits</a></li> </ul> <b>Signal yield tables:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table4">MS-agnostic R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table5">Full-detector R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table7">MS-agnostic search for metastable gluino R-hadrons</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table8">Full-detector direct-stau search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table9">Full-detector chargino search</a></li> </ul> <b>Limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table10">Gluino R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table11">Sbottom R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table12">Stop R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table13">Stau search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table14">Chargino search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table15">Meta-stable gluino R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table17">Meta-stable gluino R-hadron search</a></li> </ul> <b>Acceptance and efficiency:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table16">MS-agnostic R-hadron search</a></li> </ul> <b>Truth quantities:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table18">Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table19">Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table20">Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table21">Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model</a></li> </ul> <b>Reinterpretation material:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table22">ETmiss trigger efficiency as function of true ETmiss</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table23">Single-muon trigger efficiency as function of |eta| and beta</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table24">Candidate reconstruction efficiency for ID+Calo selection</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table25">Candidate reconstruction efficiency for loose selection</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table26">Efficiency for a loose candidate to be promoted to a tight candidate</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table27">Resolution and average of reconstructed dE/dx mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table28">Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table29">Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for FullDet candidates</a></li> </ul> <p><b>Pseudo-code snippets</b> and <b>example SLHA setups</b> are available in the "Resources" linked on the left, and more detailed reinterpretation material is available at <a href="http://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/SUSY-2016-32/hepdata_info.pdf">http://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/SUSY-2016-32/hepdata_info.pdf</a>.</p>
- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - - <br/><br/> <b>Lower mass requirement for signal regions.</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table1">Gluinos and squarks</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table2">Staus and charginos</a></li> </ul> <b>Discovery regions:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table3">Yields</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table6">p0-values and limits</a></li> </ul> <b>Signal yield tables:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table4">MS-agnostic R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table5">Full-detector R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table7">MS-agnostic search for metastable gluino R-hadrons</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table8">Full-detector direct-stau search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table9">Full-detector chargino search</a></li> </ul> <b>Limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table10">Gluino R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table11">Sbottom R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table12">Stop R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table13">Stau search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table14">Chargino search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table15">Meta-stable gluino R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table17">Meta-stable gluino R-hadron search</a></li> </ul> <b>Acceptance and efficiency:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table16">MS-agnostic R-hadron search</a></li> </ul> <b>Truth quantities:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table18">Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table19">Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table20">Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table21">Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model</a></li> </ul> <b>Reinterpretation material:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table22">ETmiss trigger efficiency as function of true ETmiss</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table23">Single-muon trigger efficiency as function of |eta| and beta</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table24">Candidate reconstruction efficiency for ID+Calo selection</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table25">Candidate reconstruction efficiency for loose selection</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table26">Efficiency for a loose candidate to be promoted to a tight candidate</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table27">Resolution and average of reconstructed dE/dx mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table28">Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table29">Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for FullDet candidates</a></li> </ul> <p><b>Pseudo-code snippets</b> and <b>example SLHA setups</b> are available in the "Resources" linked on the left, and more detailed reinterpretation material is available at <a href="http://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/SUSY-2016-32/hepdata_info.pdf">http://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/SUSY-2016-32/hepdata_info.pdf</a>.</p>
Lower mass requirement for signal regions.
Lower mass requirement for signal regions.
Lower mass requirement for signal regions.
Lower mass requirement for signal regions.
Expected and observed events in the 16 discovery regions along with the according control regions.
Expected and observed events in the 16 discovery regions along with the according control regions.
Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic R-hadron search.
Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic R-hadron search.
Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector R-hadron search.
Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector R-hadron search.
p0-values and model-independent upper limits on cross-section x acceptance x efficiency for the 16 discovery regions.
p0-values and model-independent upper limits on cross-section x acceptance x efficiency for the 16 discovery regions.
Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic search for metastable gluino R-hadrons.
Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic search for metastable gluino R-hadrons.
Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector direct-stau search.
Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector direct-stau search.
Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector chargino search.
Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector chargino search.
Upper cross-section limit in gluino R-hadron search.
Upper cross-section limit in gluino R-hadron search.
Upper cross-section limit in sbottom R-hadron search.
Upper cross-section limit in sbottom R-hadron search.
Upper cross-section limit in stop R-hadron search.
Upper cross-section limit in stop R-hadron search.
Upper cross-section limit in stau search.
Upper cross-section limit in stau search.
Upper cross-section limit in chargino search.
Upper cross-section limit in chargino search.
Lower mass limit as function of gluino lifetime.
Lower mass limit as function of gluino lifetime.
Acceptance x efficiency, acceptance and efficiency for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic R-hadron search.
Acceptance x efficiency, acceptance and efficiency for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic R-hadron search.
Upper cross-section limit in meta-stable gluino R-hadron search.
Upper cross-section limit in meta-stable gluino R-hadron search.
Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.
Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.
Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.
Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.
Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.
Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.
Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.
Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.
ETmiss trigger efficiency as function of true ETmiss (EtmissTurnOn).
ETmiss trigger efficiency as function of true ETmiss (EtmissTurnOn).
Single-muon trigger efficiency as function of $|\eta|$ and $\beta$ (SingleMuTurnOn).
Single-muon trigger efficiency as function of $|\eta|$ and $\beta$ (SingleMuTurnOn).
Candidate reconstruction efficiency for ID+Calo selection (IDCaloEff).
Candidate reconstruction efficiency for ID+Calo selection (IDCaloEff).
Candidate reconstruction efficiency for loose selection (LooseEff).
Candidate reconstruction efficiency for loose selection (LooseEff).
Efficiency for a loose candidate to be promoted to a tight candidate (TightPromotionEff).
Efficiency for a loose candidate to be promoted to a tight candidate (TightPromotionEff).
Resolution and average of reconstructed dE/dx mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates.
Resolution and average of reconstructed dE/dx mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates.
Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates.
Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates.
Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for FullDet candidates.
Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for FullDet candidates.
A search for supersymmetry in events with large missing transverse momentum, jets, and at least one hadronically decaying $\tau$-lepton is presented. Two exclusive final states with either exactly one or at least two $\tau$-leptons are considered. The analysis is based on proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ delivered by the Large Hadron Collider and recorded by the ATLAS detector in 2015 and 2016. No significant excess is observed over the Standard Model expectation. At 95% confidence level, model-independent upper limits on the cross section are set and exclusion limits are provided for two signal scenarios: a simplified model of gluino pair production with $\tau$-rich cascade decays, and a model with gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking (GMSB). In the simplified model, gluino masses up to 2000 GeV are excluded for low values of the mass of the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP), while LSP masses up to 1000 GeV are excluded for gluino masses around 1400 GeV. In the GMSB model, values of the supersymmetry-breaking scale are excluded below 110 TeV for all values of $\tan\beta$ in the range $2 \leq \tan\beta \leq 60$, and below 120 TeV for $\tan\beta>30$.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.
2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.
2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.
Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ medium-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ medium-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ high-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ high-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ multibin SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ multibin SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ GMSB SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ GMSB SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Best performing fit setups entering the final combination as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass. 'S' marks the simultaneous fit of the four simplified model single-bin SRs, 'M' denotes the simultaneous fit of the two $1\tau$ SRs and the $2\tau$ multibin SR.
Best performing fit setups entering the final combination as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass. 'S' marks the simultaneous fit of the four simplified model single-bin SRs, 'M' denotes the simultaneous fit of the two $1\tau$ SRs and the $2\tau$ multibin SR.
Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.
Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.
Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.
Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.
Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of tanBeta and SUSY breaking mass scale Lambda.
Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of tanBeta and SUSY breaking mass scale Lambda.
Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Yields of the expected background from the SM in the bins of the multibin SR of the $2\tau$ channel with all bins being simultaneously used to constrain the background prediction. Expectation is given with the scalings computed in the combined fit applied. Uncertainties are statistial plus systematrics. Only the subsamples contributing the respective region are considered.
Yields of the expected background from the SM in the bins of the multibin SR of the $2\tau$ channel with all bins being simultaneously used to constrain the background prediction. Expectation is given with the scalings computed in the combined fit applied. Uncertainties are statistial plus systematrics. Only the subsamples contributing the respective region are considered.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the compressed $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the compressed $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the medium-mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the medium-mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the medium-mass $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the medium-mass $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the top VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the top VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the $W$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the $W$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the $Z$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the $Z$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ > 80 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ > 80 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ in the compressed SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ > 1600 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ in the compressed SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ > 1600 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the high-mass SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1100 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the high-mass SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1100 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
mT(tau_1) + mT(tau_2) in the multibin SR of the 2T channel. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
mT(tau_1) + mT(tau_2) in the multibin SR of the 2T channel. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the GMSB SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1900 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the GMSB SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1900 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
This paper presents a search for direct electroweak gaugino or gluino pair production with a chargino nearly mass-degenerate with a stable neutralino. It is based on an integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ of $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC. The final state of interest is a disappearing track accompanied by at least one jet with high transverse momentum from initial-state radiation or by four jets from the gluino decay chain. The use of short track segments reconstructed from the innermost tracking layers significantly improves the sensitivity to short chargino lifetimes. The results are found to be consistent with Standard Model predictions. Exclusion limits are set at 95% confidence level on the mass of charginos and gluinos for different chargino lifetimes. For a pure wino with a lifetime of about 0.2 ns, chargino masses up to 460 GeV are excluded. For the strong production channel, gluino masses up to 1.65 TeV are excluded assuming a chargino mass of 460 GeV and lifetime of 0.2 ns.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Model dependent upper limits on cross-section (fb) for the electroweak production are shown by grey numbers in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Model dependent upper limits on cross-section (pb) for the electroweak production are shown by grey numbers in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Model dependent upper limits on cross-section (pb) for the electroweak production are shown by grey numbers in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Model dependent upper limits on cross-section (pb) for the electroweak production are shown by grey numbers in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Model dependent upper limits on cross-section (pb) for the electroweak production are shown by grey numbers in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the electroweak channel. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is defined as the probability of an event passing the signal region selection when an electroweak gaugino pair is produced in a pp collision.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the electroweak channel. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is defined as the probability of an event passing the signal region selection when an electroweak gaugino pair is produced in a pp collision.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the electroweak channel. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is defined as the probability of an event passing the signal region selection when an electroweak gaugino pair is produced in a pp collision.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the electroweak channel. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is defined as the probability of an event passing the signal region selection when an electroweak gaugino pair is produced in a pp collision.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the electroweak channel. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is defined as the probability of an event passing the signal region selection when an electroweak gaugino pair is produced in a pp collision.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the strong channel. In white regions, no simulation sample is available. The left-upper triangle region is not allowed kinematically in wino-LSP scenarios. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is calculated relative to events in which the gluinos decay into electroweak gaugino pairs.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the strong channel. In white regions, no simulation sample is available. The left-upper triangle region is not allowed kinematically in wino-LSP scenarios. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is calculated relative to events in which the gluinos decay into electroweak gaugino pairs.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the strong channel. In white regions, no simulation sample is available. The left-upper triangle region is not allowed kinematically in wino-LSP scenarios. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is calculated relative to events in which the gluinos decay into electroweak gaugino pairs.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the strong channel. In white regions, no simulation sample is available. The left-upper triangle region is not allowed kinematically in wino-LSP scenarios. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is calculated relative to events in which the gluinos decay into electroweak gaugino pairs.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the strong channel. In white regions, no simulation sample is available. The left-upper triangle region is not allowed kinematically in wino-LSP scenarios. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is calculated relative to events in which the gluinos decay into electroweak gaugino pairs.
The generator-level acceptance after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos as a function of the chargino $eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The generator-level acceptance after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in direct electroweak production with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in direct electroweak production with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in direct electroweak production with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in direct electroweak production with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in direct electroweak production with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in the strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in the strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in the strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in the strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in the strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few electroweak signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few electroweak signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few electroweak signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few electroweak signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few electroweak signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few strong signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few strong signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few strong signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few strong signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few strong signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
Systematic uncertainties in the signal event yields at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. The uncertainty in the cross-section of the strong production is large due to the large effect from the PDF uncertainty.
Systematic uncertainties in the signal event yields at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. The uncertainty in the cross-section of the strong production is large due to the large effect from the PDF uncertainty.
Systematic uncertainties in the signal event yields at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. The uncertainty in the cross-section of the strong production is large due to the large effect from the PDF uncertainty.
Systematic uncertainties in the signal event yields at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. The uncertainty in the cross-section of the strong production is large due to the large effect from the PDF uncertainty.
Systematic uncertainties in the signal event yields at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. The uncertainty in the cross-section of the strong production is large due to the large effect from the PDF uncertainty.
Observed events, expected background for null signal, and expected signal yields for two benchmark models: electroweak channel with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) and strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. Also shown are the probability of a background-only experiment being more signal-like than observed ($p_0$) and the upper limit on the model-independent visible cross-section at 95\% CL. The uncertainty in the total background yield is different from the sum of uncertainties in quadrature due to anticorrelation between different backgrounds.
Observed events, expected background for null signal, and expected signal yields for two benchmark models: electroweak channel with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) and strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. Also shown are the probability of a background-only experiment being more signal-like than observed ($p_0$) and the upper limit on the model-independent visible cross-section at 95\% CL. The uncertainty in the total background yield is different from the sum of uncertainties in quadrature due to anti-correlation between different backgrounds.
Observed events, expected background for null signal, and expected signal yields for two benchmark models: electroweak channel with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) and strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. Also shown are the probability of a background-only experiment being more signal-like than observed ($p_0$) and the upper limit on the model-independent visible cross-section at 95\% CL. The uncertainty in the total background yield is different from the sum of uncertainties in quadrature due to anti-correlation between different backgrounds.
Observed events, expected background for null signal, and expected signal yields for two benchmark models: electroweak channel with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) and strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. Also shown are the probability of a background-only experiment being more signal-like than observed ($p_0$) and the upper limit on the model-independent visible cross-section at 95\% CL. The uncertainty in the total background yield is different from the sum of uncertainties in quadrature due to anti-correlation between different backgrounds.
Observed events, expected background for null signal, and expected signal yields for two benchmark models: electroweak channel with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) and strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. Also shown are the probability of a background-only experiment being more signal-like than observed ($p_0$) and the upper limit on the model-independent visible cross-section at 95\% CL. The uncertainty in the total background yield is different from the sum of uncertainties in quadrature due to anti-correlation between different backgrounds.
Effects of systematic uncertainties on the signal exclusion significance at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. Effects of uncertainties on the fake-tracklet background is smaller in the strong channel analysis because the estimated number of the fake-tracket background events is small.
Effects of systematic uncertainties on the signal exclusion significance at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. Effects of uncertainties on the fake-tracklet background is smaller in the strong channel analysis because the estimated number of the fake-tracklet background events is small.
Effects of systematic uncertainties on the signal exclusion significance at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. Effects of uncertainties on the fake-tracklet background is smaller in the strong channel analysis because the estimated number of the fake-tracklet background events is small.
Effects of systematic uncertainties on the signal exclusion significance at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. Effects of uncertainties on the fake-tracklet background is smaller in the strong channel analysis because the estimated number of the fake-tracklet background events is small.
Effects of systematic uncertainties on the signal exclusion significance at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. Effects of uncertainties on the fake-tracklet background is smaller in the strong channel analysis because the estimated number of the fake-tracklet background events is small.
Cross-section upper limits for the strong production, presented in unit of fb. Left-upper triangle region is unphysical because the wino mass is larger than the gluino mass.
Cross-section upper limits for the strong production, presented in unit of fb. Left-upper triangle region is unphysical because the wino mass is larger than the gluino mass.
Cross-section upper limits for the strong production, presented in unit of fb. Left-upper triangle region is unphysical because the wino mass is larger than the gluino mass.
Cross-section upper limits for the strong production, presented in unit of fb. Left-upper triangle region is unphysical because the wino mass is larger than the gluino mass.
Cross-section upper limits for the strong production, presented in unit of fb. Left-upper triangle region is unphysical because the wino mass is larger than the gluino mass.
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 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.
The results of a search for new heavy $W^\prime$ bosons decaying to an electron or muon and a neutrino using proton-proton collision data at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV are presented. The dataset was collected in 2015 and 2016 by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. As no excess of events above the Standard Model prediction is observed, the results are used to set upper limits on the $W^\prime$ boson cross-section times branching ratio to an electron or muon and a neutrino as a function of the $W^\prime$ mass. Assuming a $W^\prime$ boson with the same couplings as the Standard Model $W$ boson, $W^\prime$ masses below 5.1 TeV are excluded at the 95% confidence level.
Transverse mass distribution for events satisfying all selection criteria in the electron channel.
Transverse mass distribution for events satisfying all selection criteria in the electron channel.
Transverse mass distribution for events satisfying all selection criteria in the muon channel.
Transverse mass distribution for events satisfying all selection criteria in the muon channel.
Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM W' production and decay to the electron+neutrino channel as a function of the W' pole mass.
Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM W' production and decay to the electron+neutrino channel as a function of the W' pole mass.
Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM W' production and decay to the muon+neutrino channel as a function of the W' pole mass.
Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM W' production and decay to the muon+neutrino channel as a function of the W' pole mass.
Combined (electron and muon channels) upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM W' production and decay to a single lepton generation as a function of the W' pole mass.
Combined (electron and muon channels) upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM W' production and decay to a single lepton generation as a function of the W' pole mass.
Product of acceptance and efficiency for the electron and muon selections as a function of the W' pole mass.
Product of acceptance and efficiency for the electron and muon selections as a function of the W' pole mass.
A search for supersymmetry in events with large missing transverse momentum, jets, and at least one hadronically decaying tau lepton has been performed using 3.2 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV recorded by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider in 2015. Two exclusive final states are considered, with either exactly one or at least two tau leptons. No excess over the Standard Model prediction is observed in the data. Results are interpreted in the context of gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking and a simplified model of gluino pair production with tau-rich cascade decays, substantially improving on previous limits. In the GMSB model considered, supersymmetry-breaking scale ($\Lambda$) values below 92 TeV are excluded at the 95% confidence level, corresponding to gluino masses below 2000 GeV. For large values of $\tan\beta$, values of $\Lambda$ up to 107 TeV and gluino masses up to 2300 GeV are excluded. In the simplified model, gluino masses are excluded up to 1570 GeV for neutralino masses around 100 GeV. Neutralino masses up to 700 GeV are excluded for all gluino masses between 800 GeV and 1500 GeV, while the strongest exclusion of 750 GeV is achieved for gluino masses around 1400 GeV.
mTtau distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 1 tau channel, for the Compressed SR selection without the mTtau > 80 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Uncertainties are statistical only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "LM" refers to a low mass splitting, or compressed scenario, with m(gluino)=665 GeV and m(neutralino)=585 GeV; "MM" stands for a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV.
mTtau distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 1 tau channel, for the Medium Mass SR selection without the mTtau > 200 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Uncertainties are statistical only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "LM" refers to a low mass splitting, or compressed scenario, with m(gluino)=665 GeV and m(neutralino)=585 GeV; "MM" stands for a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV.
mTtau distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 1 tau channel, for the High Mass SR selection without the mTtau > 200 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Uncertainties are statistical only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "LM" refers to a low mass splitting, or compressed scenario, with m(gluino)=665 GeV and m(neutralino)=585 GeV; "MM" stands for a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV.
Kinematic distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 2-tau channel, for mTsum in the Compressed SR selection without the mTsum>1400 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Cited uncertainties are statistical uncertainties only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "MM" refers to a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV. The GMSB benchmark model corresponds to Lambda = 90 TeV and tanbeta = 40.
Kinematic distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 2-tau channel, for mTtau1+mTtau2 in the High-Mass SR selection without the mTtau1+mTtau2>350GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Cited uncertainties are statistical uncertainties only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "MM" refers to a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV. The GMSB benchmark model corresponds to Lambda = 90 TeV and tanbeta = 40.
Kinematic distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 2-tau channel, for HT in the GMSB SR selection without the HT > 1700 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Cited uncertainties are statistical uncertainties only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "MM" refers to a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV. The GMSB benchmark model corresponds to Lambda = 90 TeV and tanbeta = 40.
Expected exclusion contour at the 95% confidence level for the simplified model of gluino pair production, based on the combined results from the 1tau and 2tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data.
Observed exclusion contour at the 95% confidence level for the simplified model of gluino pair production, based on the combined results from the 1tau and 2tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data.
Expected exclusion contour at the 95% confidence level for the simplified model of gluino pair production, based on results from the 2tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data.
Expected exclusion contour at the 95% confidence level for the simplified model of gluino pair production, based on results from the 1tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data.
Observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the gauge-mediated supersymmetry-breaking model, based on results from the 2 tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data. Additional model parameters are M(mess) = 250 TeV, N5 = 3, mu>0 and Cgrav =1.
Expected exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the gauge-mediated supersymmetry-breaking model, based on results from the 2 tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data. Additional model parameters are M(mess) = 250 TeV, N5 = 3, mu>0 and Cgrav =1.
Observed upper cross section limits in pb for the simplified model of gluino pair production for the combination of all SRs.
Best expected signal region for the simplified model of gluino pair production. The respective SR has been used in the combination of the results.
Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the Compressed 1tau signal region.
Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the Compressed 1tau signal region.
Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the Compressed 1tau signal region.
Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the medium mass 1tau signal region.
Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the medium mass 1tau signal region.
Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the medium mass 1tau signal region.
Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 1tau signal region.
Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 1tau signal region.
Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 1tau signal region.
Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the compressed 2tau signal region.
Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the compressed 2tau signal region.
Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the compressed 2tau signal region.
Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 2tau signal region.
Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 2tau signal region.
Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 2tau signal region.
Acceptance for the GMSB model grid in the 2tau signal region.
Efficiency for the GMSB model grid in the 2tau signal region.
Acceptance times Efficiency for the GMSB model grid in the 2tau signal region.
The result of a search for pair production of the supersymmetric partner of the Standard Model bottom quark ($\tilde{b}_1$) is reported. The search uses 3.2 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$13 TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider in 2015. Bottom squarks are searched for in events containing large missing transverse momentum and exactly two jets identified as originating from $b$-quarks. No excess above the expected Standard Model background yield is observed. Exclusion limits at 95% confidence level on the mass of the bottom squark are derived in phenomenological supersymmetric $R$-parity-conserving models in which the $\tilde{b}_1$ is the lightest squark and is assumed to decay exclusively via $\tilde{b}_1 \rightarrow b \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, where $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ is the lightest neutralino. The limits significantly extend previous results; bottom squark masses up to 800 (840) GeV are excluded for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass below 360 (100) GeV whilst differences in mass above 100 GeV between the $\tilde{b}_1$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ are excluded up to a $\tilde{b}_1$ mass of 500 GeV.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario.
Signal region (SR) providing the best expected sensitivity in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane.
Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the best expected signal region.
Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.
Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.
Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA450 signal region.
Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRB signal region.
Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the best expected signal region.
Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA250.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA250.
Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA350.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA350.
Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA450 signal region.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA450.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA450.
Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRB signal region.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRB.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRB.
Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the best expected signal region.
Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.
Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.
Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA450 signal region.
Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRB signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the best expected signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA250 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA350 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA450 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRB signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the best expected signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA250 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA350 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA450 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRB signal region.
Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.
The results of a search for the stop, the supersymmetric partner of the top quark, in final states with one isolated electron or muon, jets, and missing transverse momentum are reported. The search uses the 2015 LHC $pp$ collision data at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV recorded by the ATLAS detector and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb${}^{-1}$. The analysis targets two types of signal models: gluino-mediated pair production of stops with a nearly mass-degenerate stop and neutralino; and direct pair production of stops, decaying to the top quark and the lightest neutralino. The experimental signature in both signal scenarios is similar to that of a top quark pair produced in association with large missing transverse momentum. No significant excess over the Standard Model background prediction is observed, and exclusion limits on gluino and stop masses are set at 95% confidence level. The results extend the LHC Run-1 exclusion limit on the gluino mass up to 1460 GeV in the gluino-mediated scenario in the high gluino and low stop mass region, and add an excluded stop mass region from 745 to 780 GeV for the direct stop model with a massless lightest neutralino. The results are also reinterpreted to set exclusion limits in a model of vector-like top quarks.
Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the $am_\text{T2}$ distribution with the STCR1 event selection except for the requirement on $am_\text{T2}$. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.
Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the $b$-tagged jet multiplicity with the STCR1 event selection except for the requirement on the $b$-tagged jet multiplicity. Furthermore, the $\Delta R(b_1,b_2)$ requirement is dropped. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.
Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the $\Delta R(b_1,b_2)$ distribution with the STCR1 event selection except for the requirement on $\Delta R(b_1,b_2)$. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.
Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ distribution with the TZCR1 event selection except for the requirement on $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$. The variables $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$ are constructed in the same way as $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{T}$ but treating the leading photon transverse momentum as invisible. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.
Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$ distribution with the TZCR1 event selection except for the requirement on $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$. The variables $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$ are constructed in the same way as $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{T}$ but treating the leading photon transverse momentum as invisible. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.
Comparison of the observed data ($n_\text{obs}$) with the predicted background ($n_\text{exp}$) in the validation and signal regions. The background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between data and predicted background, where the significance is based on the total uncertainty ($\sigma_\text{tot}$).
Jet multiplicity distributions for events where exactly two signal leptons are selected. No correction factors are included in the background normalizations. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.
Jet multiplicity distributions for events where exactly one lepton plus one $\tau$ candidate are selected. No correction factors are included in the background normalizations. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.
The $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ distribution in SR1. In the plot, the full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement on $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow. Benchmark signal models are overlaid for comparison. The benchmark models are specified by the gluino and stop masses, given in TeV in the table.
The $m_\text{T}$ distribution in SR1. In the plot, the full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement on $m_\text{T}$. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow. Benchmark signal models are overlaid for comparison. The benchmark models are specified by the gluino and stop masses, given in TeV in the table.
Expected (black dashed) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ versus $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ for gluino-mediated stop production.
Observed (red solid) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ versus $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ for gluino-mediated stop production.
Expected (black dashed) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ versus $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ for direct stop production.
Observed (red solid) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ versus $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ for direct stop production.
The expected upper limits on $T$ quark pair production times the squared branching ratio for $T \rightarrow tZ$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass.
The observed upper limits on $T$ quark pair production times the squared branching ratio for $T \rightarrow tZ$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass.
The expected limits on $T$ quarks as a function of the branching ratios $B\left(T \rightarrow bW\right)$ and $B\left(T \rightarrow tH\right)$ for a $T$ quark with a mass of 800 GeV. The $T$ is assumed to decay in three possible ways: $T \to tZ$, $T \to tH$, and $T \to bW$.
The observed limits on $T$ quarks as a function of the branching ratios $B\left(T \rightarrow bW\right)$ and $B\left(T \rightarrow tH\right)$ for a $T$ quark with a mass of 800 GeV. The $T$ is assumed to decay in three possible ways: $T \to tZ$, $T \to tH$, and $T \to bW$.
The $m_\text{T}$ distribution in the WVR2-tail validation region which has the same preselection and jet $p_\text{T}$ requirements as SR2.
The $am_\text{T2}$ distribution in the WVR2-tail validation region which has the same preselection and jet $p_\text{T}$ requirements as SR2.
Large-radius jet mass ($R=1.2$), decomposed into the number of small-radius jet constituents. The lower panel shows the ratio of the total data to the total prediction (summed over all jet multiplicities). Events are required to have one lepton, four jets with $p_\text{T}>80,50,40,40$ GeV, at least one $b$-tagged jet, $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}>200$ GeV, and $m_\text{T}>30$ GeV.
Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^\tau$ in data for a selection enriched in $t\bar{t}$ events with one hadronically decaying $\tau$. Events that have no hadronic $\tau$ candidate (that passes the Loose identification criteria, as well as other requirements) are not shown in the plot.
Upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for the gluino-mediated stop models.
Upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for the models with direct stop pair production.
Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for the gluino-mediated stop models. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.
Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for models with direct stop pair production. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.
Expected $CL_s$ values for the gluino-mediated stop models.
Observed $CL_s$ values for the gluino-mediated stop models.
Expected $CL_s$ values for the direct stop pair production models.
Observed $CL_s$ values for the direct stop pair production models.
Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).
Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).
Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).
Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).
Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).
Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).
Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).
Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).
Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).
Acceptance for SR1 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.
Acceptance for SR1 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.
Acceptance for SR2 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.
Acceptance for SR2 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.
Acceptance for SR3 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.
Acceptance for SR3 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.
Efficiency for SR1 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).
Efficiency for SR1 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).
Efficiency for SR2 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).
Efficiency for SR2 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).
Efficiency for SR3 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).
Efficiency for SR3 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).
A search for Supersymmetry involving the pair production of gluinos decaying via third-generation squarks to the lightest neutralino is reported. It uses an LHC proton--proton dataset at a center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb$^{-1}$ collected with the ATLAS detector in 2015. The signal is searched for in events containing several energetic jets, of which at least three must be identified as $b$-jets, large missing transverse momentum and, potentially, isolated electrons or muons. Large-radius jets with a high mass are also used to identify highly boosted top quarks. No excess is found above the predicted background. For neutralino masses below approximately 700 GeV, gluino masses of less than 1.78 TeV and 1.76 TeV are excluded at the 95% CL in simplified models of the pair production of gluinos decaying via sbottom and stop, respectively. These results significantly extend the exclusion limits obtained with the $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV dataset.
Distribution of missing transverse energy for SR-Gbb-B.
Distribution of missing transverse energy for SR-Gtt-0L-C.
Distribution of missing transverse energy for SR-Gtt-1L-A.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gbb signal.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gbb signal.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gtt combination.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gtt combination.
Acceptances for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-A. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-A. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-B. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-C. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-A. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-B. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-A.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-A.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-B.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-C.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-A.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-A.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-A.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-C.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-A.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-B.
Signal region yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gbb model.
Signal region yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gtt model for the 0-lepton channel.
Signal region yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gtt model for the 1-lepton channel.
Combination of two 0-lepton and 1-lepton signal regions yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gtt model.
A search for squarks and gluinos in final states containing hadronic jets, missing transverse momentum but no electrons or muons is presented. The data were recorded in 2015 by the ATLAS experiment in $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV proton--proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider. No excess above the Standard Model background expectation was observed in 3.2 fb$^{-1}$ of analyzed data. Results are interpreted within simplified models that assume R-parity is conserved and the neutralino is the lightest supersymmetric particle. An exclusion limit at the 95% confidence level on the mass of the gluino is set at 1.51 TeV for a simplified model incorporating only a gluino octet and the lightest neutralino, assuming the lightest neutralino is massless. For a simplified model involving the strong production of mass-degenerate first- and second-generation squarks, squark masses below 1.03 TeV are excluded for a massless lightest neutralino. These limits substantially extend the region of supersymmetric parameter space excluded by previous measurements with the ATLAS detector.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jl. For signal, a squark direct decay model with $m(\tilde q)=800$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=400$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jm. For signal, a gluino direct decay model with $m(\tilde g)=750$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=660$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jt. For signal, a squark direct decay model with $m(\tilde q)=1200$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=0$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4jt. For signal, a gluino direct decay model with $m(\tilde g)=1400$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=0$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR5j. For signal, a gluino one-step decay model with $m(\tilde g)=1265$ GeV, $m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)=945$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=625$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6jm. For signal, a gluino one-step decay model with $m(\tilde g)=1265$ GeV, $m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)=945$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=625$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6jt. For signal, a gluino one-step decay model with $m(\tilde g)=1385$ GeV, $m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)=705$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=25$ GeV is shown.
Expected limit at 95% CL for squark direct decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for squark direct decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for squark direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL for squark direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for squark direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for squark direct decay model grid.
Expected limit at 95% CL for gluino direct decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino direct decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL for gluino direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino direct decay model grid.
Expected limit at 95% CL for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR2jl.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR2jl.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR2jl.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR2jl.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR2jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR2jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR2jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR2jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR2jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR2jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR2jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR2jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR5j.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR5j.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR5j.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR5j.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR6jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR6jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR6jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR6jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR6jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR6jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR6jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR6jt.
Observed and expected event yields in VRZ as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRW as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRWv as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRT as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRTv as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRQa as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRQb as a function of signal region.
Signal acceptance for SR2jl in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jl in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jm in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jm in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR4jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR4jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR5j in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR5j in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jm in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jm in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jl in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jl in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jm in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jm in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR4jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR4jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR5j in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR5j in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jm in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jm in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jl in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jl in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2j5 in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR4jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR4jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR5j in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR5j in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
A search for strongly produced supersymmetric particles is conducted using signatures involving multiple energetic jets and either two isolated leptons ($e$ or $\mu$) with the same electric charge or at least three isolated leptons. The search also utilises $b$-tagged jets, missing transverse momentum and other observables to extend its sensitivity. The analysis uses a data sample of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider in 2015 corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb$^{-1}$. No significant excess over the Standard Model expectation is observed. The results are interpreted in several simplified supersymmetric models and extend the exclusion limits from previous searches. In the context of exclusive production and simplified decay modes, gluino masses are excluded at 95% confidence level up to 1.1-1.3 TeV for light neutralinos (depending on the decay channel), and bottom squark masses are also excluded up to 540 GeV. In the former scenarios, neutralino masses are also excluded up to 550-850 GeV for gluino masses around 1 TeV.
Missing transverse momentum distribution after SR0b3j selection, beside the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ requirement. The results in the signal region correspond to the last inclusive bin. The systematic uncertainties include theory uncertainties for the backgrounds with prompt SS/3L and the full systematic uncertainties for data-driven backgrounds. For illustration the distribution for a benchmark SUSY scenario ($pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$, $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$, $m_{\tilde g}=1.3$ TeV, $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}=0.5$ TeV) is also shown.
Missing transverse momentum distribution after SR0b5j selection, beside the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ requirement. The results in the signal region correspond to the last inclusive bin. The systematic uncertainties include theory uncertainties for the backgrounds with prompt SS/3L and the full systematic uncertainties for data-driven backgrounds. For illustration the distribution for a benchmark SUSY scenario ($pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$, $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$, $m_{\tilde g}=1.1$ TeV, $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}=0.4$ TeV) is also shown.
Missing transverse momentum distribution after SR1b selection, beside the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ requirement. The results in the signal region correspond to the last inclusive bin. The systematic uncertainties include theory uncertainties for the backgrounds with prompt SS/3L and the full systematic uncertainties for data-driven backgrounds. For illustration the distribution for a benchmark SUSY scenario ($pp\to \tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$, $\tilde b_1\to tW\tilde\chi_1^0$, $m_{\tilde b_1}=600$ GeV, $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}=50$ GeV) is also shown.
Missing transverse momentum distribution after SR3b selection, beside the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ requirement. The results in the signal region correspond to the last inclusive bin. The systematic uncertainties include theory uncertainties for the backgrounds with prompt SS/3L and the full systematic uncertainties for data-driven backgrounds. For illustration the distribution for a benchmark SUSY scenario ($pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$, $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$, $m_{\tilde g}=1.2$ TeV, $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}=0.7$ TeV) is also shown.
Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar q(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR0b3j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar q(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR0b3j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar qWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR0b5j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar qWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR0b5j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ production and $\tilde b_1\to tW\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR1b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ production and $\tilde b_1\to tW\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR1b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR3b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR3b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
Results are reported of a search for new phenomena, such as supersymmetric particle production, that could be observed in high-energy proton--proton collisions. Events with large numbers of jets, together with missing transverse momentum from unobserved particles, are selected. The data analysed were recorded by the ATLAS experiment during 2015 using the 13 TeV centre-of-mass proton--proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb$^{-1}$. The search selected events with various jet multiplicities from $\ge 7$ to $\ge 10$ jets, and with various $b$-jet multiplicity requirements to enhance sensitivity. No excess above Standard Model expectations is observed. The results are interpreted within two supersymmetry models, where gluino masses up to 1400 GeV are excluded at 95% confidence level, significantly extending previous limits.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in validation region 7ej50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in validation region 6ej80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.
Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.
+1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.
-1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.
Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.
+1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.
-1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at no b-jet requirement. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at least 1 b-jet. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at least 2 b-jets. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Summary of all 15 signal regions (post-fit).
Signal region yielding the best-expected CLs value, the best expected CLs value, and the corresponding observed CLs value for the 2Step grid.
Signal region yielding the best-expected CLs value, the best expected CLs value, and the corresponding observed CLs value for the pMSSM grid.
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section for 2-step signal points for the best-expected signal region.
Performance of the 8j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
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.