A search for the electroweak production of pairs of charged sleptons or charginos decaying into two-lepton final states with missing transverse momentum is presented. Two simplified models of $R$-parity-conserving supersymmetry are considered: direct pair-production of sleptons ($\tilde{\ell}\tilde{\ell}$), with each decaying into a charged lepton and a $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ neutralino, and direct pair-production of the lightest charginos $(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^\mp)$, with each decaying into a $W$-boson and a $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) is assumed to be the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). The analyses target the experimentally challenging mass regions where $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm)-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ are close to the $W$-boson mass (`moderately compressed' regions). The search uses 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV proton-proton collisions recorded by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. No significant excesses over the expected background are observed. Exclusion limits on the simplified models under study are reported in the ($\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) and ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) mass planes at 95% confidence level (CL). Sleptons with masses up to 150 GeV are excluded at 95% CL for the case of a mass-splitting between sleptons and the LSP of 50 GeV. Chargino masses up to 140 GeV are excluded at 95% CL for the case of a mass-splitting between the chargino and the LSP down to about 100 GeV.
<b>- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - -</b> <b>Title: </b><em>Search for direct pair production of sleptons and charginos decaying to two leptons and neutralinos with mass splittings near the $W$ boson mass in $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV $pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector</em> <b>Paper website:</b> <a href="https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/SUSY-2019-02/">SUSY-2019-02</a> <b>Exclusion contours</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal>Combined Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_up>Combined Observed Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_down>Combined Observed Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal>Combined Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_up>Combined Expected Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_down>Combined Expected Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_dM>Combined Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_up_dM>Combined Observed Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_down_dM>Combined Observed Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_dM>Combined Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_up_dM>Combined Expected Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_down_dM>Combined Expected Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_SR0j>Combined Observed Nominal SR-0j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_SR0j>Combined Expected Nominal SR-0j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_SR1j>Combined Observed Nominal SR-1j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_SR1j>Combined Expected Nominal SR-1j</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_nominal>Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_up>Observed Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_down>Observed Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_nominal_dM>Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_up_dM>Observed Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_down_dM>Observed Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Down $(\Delta m)$</a> </ul> <b>Upper Limits</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=UL_slep>ULs</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=UL_c1c1>ULs</a> </ul> <b>Pull Plots</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=pullplot_slep>SRs summary plot</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=pullplot_c1c1>SRs summary plot</a> </ul> <b>Cutflows</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=Cutflow_slep_SR0j>Towards SR-0J</a> <a href=?table=Cutflow_slep_SR1j>Towards SR-1J</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=Cutflow_SRs>Towards SRs</a> </ul> <b>Acceptance and Efficiencies</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_100_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_100_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_110_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_110_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_120_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_120_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_130_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_130_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_100_105>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_100_105>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_105_110>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_105_110>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_110_115>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_110_115>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_115_120>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_115_120>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_120_125>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_125_130>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_130_140>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_130_140>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_140_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_140_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_100_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_100_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_110_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_110_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_120_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_120_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_130_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_130_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_100_105>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_100_105>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_105_110>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_105_110>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_110_115>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_110_115>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_115_120>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_115_120>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_120_125>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_125_130>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_130_140>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_130_140>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_140_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_140_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_1_SF_77_1>SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_1_SF_77_1>SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_82_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_82_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_83_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_83_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_84_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_84_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_85_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_85_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_8125>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,8125]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_8125>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,8125]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8125_815>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,815]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8125_815>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,815]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_815_8175>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,8175]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_815_8175>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,8175]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8175_82>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,82]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8175_82>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,82]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_82_8225>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,8225]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_82_8225>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,8225]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8225_825>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,825]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8225_825>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,825]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_825_8275>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,8275]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_825_8275>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,8275]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8275_83>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,83]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8275_83>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,83]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_83_8325>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,8325]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_83_8325>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,8325]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8325_835>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,835]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8325_835>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,835]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_835_8375>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,8375]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_835_8375>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,8375]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8375_84>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,84]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8375_84>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,84]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_84_845>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,845]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_84_845>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,845]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_845_85>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,85]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_845_85>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,85]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_85_86>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,86]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_85_86>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,86]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_86_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_86_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_77_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_77_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_78_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_78_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_79_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_79_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_80_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_80_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_77_775>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_77_775>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_775_78>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_775_78>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_78_785>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_78_785>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_785_79>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_785_79>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_79_795>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_79_795>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_795_80>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_795_80>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_80_81>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_80_81>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_81_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_81_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Efficiency</a></ul> <b>Truth Code snippets</b>, <b>SLHA</b> and <b>machine learning</b> files are available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
A search for Higgs boson pair production in events with two $b$-jets and two $\tau$-leptons is presented, using a proton-proton collision dataset with an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ collected at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC. Higgs boson pairs produced non-resonantly or in the decay of a narrow scalar resonance in the mass range from 251 to 1600 GeV are targeted. Events in which at least one $\tau$-lepton decays hadronically are considered, and multivariate discriminants are used to reject the backgrounds. No significant excess of events above the expected background is observed in the non-resonant search. The largest excess in the resonant search is observed at a resonance mass of 1 TeV, with a local (global) significance of $3.1\sigma$ ($2.0\sigma$). Observed (expected) 95% confidence-level upper limits are set on the non-resonant Higgs boson pair-production cross-section at 4.7 (3.9) times the Standard Model prediction, assuming Standard Model kinematics, and on the resonant Higgs boson pair-production cross-section at between 21 and 900 fb (12 and 840 fb), depending on the mass of the narrow scalar resonance.
Breakdown of the relative contributions to the uncertainty in the extracted signal cross-sections, as determined in the likelihood fit (described in Section 8) to data. These are obtained by fixing the relevant nuisance parameters in the likelihood fit, and subtracting the obtained uncertainty on the fitted signal cross-sections in quadrature from the total uncertainty, and then dividing the result by the total uncertainty. The sum in quadrature of the individual components differs from the total uncertainty due to correlations between uncertainties in the different groups.
Post-fit expected number of signal and background events and observed number of data events in the last two bins of the non-resonant BDT score distribution of the SM signal after applying the selection criteria and requiring exactly 2 b-tagged jets and assuming a background-only hypothesis
Observed and expected upper limits at 95% CL on the cross-section of non-resonant HH production according to SM-like kinematics, and on the cross-section of non-resonant HH production divided by the SM prediction. The 1 sigma and 2 sigma variations around the expected limit are also shown.
A search is presented for vector-like T and B quark-antiquark pairs produced in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. Data were collected by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC in 2016-2018, with an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. Events are separated into single-lepton, same-sign charge dilepton, and multilepton channels. In the analysis of the single-lepton channel a multilayer neural network and jet identification techniques are employed to select signal events, while the same-sign dilepton and multilepton channels rely on the high-energy signature of the signal to distinguish it from standard model backgrounds. The data are consistent with standard model background predictions, and the production of vector-like quark pairs is excluded at 95% confidence level for T quark masses up to 1.54 TeV and B quark masses up to 1.56 TeV, depending on the branching fractions assumed, with maximal sensitivity to decay modes that include multiple top quarks. The limits obtained in this search are the strongest limits to date for $\mathrm{T\overline{T}}$ production, excluding masses below 1.48 TeV for all decays to third generation quarks, and are the strongest limits to date for $\mathrm{B\overline{B}}$ production with B quark decays to tW.
Distribution of ST in the training region for the $T\overline{T}$ MLP. The observed data are shown along with the predicted $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario and the background. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction before performing the fit to data are also shown. The signal predictions of 1.2 TeV and 1.5 TeV signals have been scaled by factors of x300 and x600, respectively, for visibility.
Distribution of the leading jet’s DEEPAK8 light quark or gluon score in the training region for the $T\overline{T}$ MLP. The observed data are shown along with the predicted $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario and the background. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction before performing the fit to data are also shown. The signal predictions of 1.2 TeV and 1.5 TeV signals have been scaled by factors of x300 and x600, respectively, for visibility.
Distribution of the MLP T quark score in the SR for the $T\overline{T}$ search. The observed data, predicted $T\overline{T}$ signal with mass of 1.2 (1.5) TeV in the singlet scenario, and the background are all shown. Statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction before performing the fit to data are also shown. The signal predictions of 1.2 TeV and 1.5 TeV signals have been scaled by factors of x10 and x20, respectively, for visibility.
Inclusive and differential measurements of the top-antitop ($t\bar{t}$) charge asymmetry $A_\text{C}^{t\bar{t}}$ and the leptonic asymmetry $A_\text{C}^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ are presented in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV recorded by the ATLAS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. The measurement uses the complete Run 2 dataset, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, combines data in the single-lepton and dilepton channels, and employs reconstruction techniques adapted to both the resolved and boosted topologies. A Bayesian unfolding procedure is performed to correct for detector resolution and acceptance effects. The combined inclusive $t\bar{t}$ charge asymmetry is measured to be $A_\text{C}^{t\bar{t}} = 0.0068 \pm 0.0015$, which differs from zero by 4.7 standard deviations. Differential measurements are performed as a function of the invariant mass, transverse momentum and longitudinal boost of the $t\bar{t}$ system. Both the inclusive and differential measurements are found to be compatible with the Standard Model predictions, at next-to-next-to-leading order in quantum chromodynamics perturbation theory with next-to-leading-order electroweak corrections. The measurements are interpreted in the framework of the Standard Model effective field theory, placing competitive bounds on several Wilson coefficients.
- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - - <br/><br/> <b>Results:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsmtt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvspttt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsbetatt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforleptonicchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsllmll">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsllptll">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Resultsforchargeasymmetryvsllbetall">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> </ul> <b>Bounds on the Wilson coefficients:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=BoundsonWilsoncoefficientschargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=BoundsonWilsoncoefficientschargeasymmetryvsmtt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$</a> </ul> <b>Ranking of systematic uncertainties:</b></br> Inclusive:<a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$</a></br> <b>$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsbetattbin0">$\beta_{z,t\bar{t}} \in[0,0.3]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsbetattbin1">$\beta_{z,t\bar{t}} \in[0.3,0.6]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsbetattbin2">$\beta_{z,t\bar{t}} \in[0.6,0.8]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsbetattbin3">$\beta_{z,t\bar{t}} \in[0.8,1]$</a> </ul> <b>$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin0">$m_{t\bar{t}}$ < $500$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin1">$m_{t\bar{t}} \in [500,750]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin2">$m_{t\bar{t}} \in [750,1000]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin3">$m_{t\bar{t}} \in [1000,1500]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsmttbin4">$m_{t\bar{t}}$ > $1500$GeV</a> </ul> <b>$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsptttbin0">$p_{T,t\bar{t}} \in [0,30]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsptttbin1">$p_{T,t\bar{t}} \in[30,120]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsptttbin2">$p_{T,t\bar{t}}$ > $120$GeV</a> </ul> Inclusive leptonic:<a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingleptonicchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a></br> <b>$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&tableNPrankingchargeasymmetry=vsllbetallbin0">$\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [0,0.3]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&tableNPrankingchargeasymmetry=vsllbetallbin1">$\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [0.3,0.6]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&tableNPrankingchargeasymmetry=vsllbetallbin2">$\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [0.6,0.8]$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&tableNPrankingchargeasymmetry=vsllbetallbin3">$\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [0.8,1]$</a> </ul> <b>$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllmllbin0">$m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ < $200$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllmllbin1">$m_{\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [200,300]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllmllbin2">$m_{\ell\bar{\ell}} \in [300,400]$Ge$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllmllbin3">$m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > $400$GeV</a> </ul> <b>$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllptllbin0">$p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}\in [0,20]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllptllbin1">$p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}\in[20,70]$GeV</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPrankingchargeasymmetryvsllptllbin2">$p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$ > $70$GeV</a> </ul> <b>NP correlations:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsmtt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvspttt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsbetatt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationsleptonicchargeasymmetryinclusive">$A_c^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsllmll">$A_c^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsllptll">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=NPcorrelationschargeasymmetryvsllbetall">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> </ul> <b>Covariance matrices:</b> <ul> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixchargeasymmetryvsmtt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m_{t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixchargeasymmetryvspttt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixchargeasymmetryvsbetatt">$A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $\beta_{z,t\bar{t}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixleptonicchargeasymmetryvsllmll">$A_c^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $m_{\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixleptonicchargeasymmetryvsllptll">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $p_{T,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> <li><a href="132116?version=1&table=Covariancematrixleptonicchargeasymmetryvsllbetall">$A_C^{\ell\bar{\ell}}$ vs $\beta_{z,\ell\bar{\ell}}$</a> </ul>
The unfolded inclusive charge asymmetry. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed, and the impact of the linear term of the Wilson coefficient on the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ prediction is shown for two different values. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.
The unfolded differential charge asymmetry as a function of the invariant mass of the top pair system. The measured values are given with statistical and systematic uncertainties. The SM theory predictions calculated at NNLO in QCD and NLO in EW theory are listed, and the impact of the linear term of the Wilson coefficient on the $A_C^{t\bar{t}}$ prediction is shown for two different values. The scale uncertainty is obtained by varying renormalisation and factorisation scales independently by a factor of 2 or 0.5 around $\mu_0$ to calculate the maximum and minimum value of the asymmetry, respectively. The nominal value $\mu_0$ is chosen as $H_T/4$. The variations in which one scale is multiplied by 2 while the other scale is divided by 2 are excluded. Finally, the scale and MC integration uncertainties are added in quadrature.
A search for 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.
This Letter presents a search for direct production of charginos and neutralinos via electroweak interactions. The results are based on data from proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV collected with the CMS detector at the LHC, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 137 fb$^{-1}$. The search considers final states with large missing transverse momentum and pairs of hadronically decaying bosons WW, WZ, and WH, where H is the Higgs boson. These bosons are identified using novel algorithms. No significant excess of events is observed relative to the expectations from the standard model. Limits at the 95% confidence level are placed on the cross section for production of mass-degenerate wino-like supersymmetric particles $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$, and mass-degenerate higgsino-like supersymmetric particles $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$, $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$, and $\tilde{\chi}_3^0$. In the limit of a nearly-massless lightest supersymmetric particle $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$, wino-like particles with masses up to 870 and 960 GeV are excluded in the cases of $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\to$ Z$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\to$ H$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$, respectively, and higgsino-like particles are excluded between 300 and 650 GeV.
SM background prediction vs. observation in the b-veto signal region
SM background observation/prediction in the bVeto signal region
SM background prediction vs. observation in the WH signal region
A search is reported for heavy resonances and quantum black holes decaying into e$\mu$, e$\tau$, and $\mu\tau$ final states in proton-proton collision data recorded by the CMS experiment at the CERN LHC during 2016-2018 at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$. The e$\mu$, e$\tau$, and $\mu\tau$ invariant mass spectra are reconstructed, and no evidence is found for physics beyond the standard model. Upper limits are set at 95% confidence level on the product of the cross section and branching fraction for lepton flavor violating signals. Three benchmark signals are studied: resonant $\tau$ sneutrino production in $R$ parity violating supersymmetric models, heavy Z' gauge bosons with lepton flavor violating decays, and nonresonant quantum black hole production in models with extra spatial dimensions. Resonant $\tau$ sneutrinos are excluded for masses up to 4.2 TeV in the e$\mu$ channel, 3.7 TeV in the e$\tau$ channel, and 3.6 TeV in the $\mu\tau$ channel. A Z' boson with lepton flavor violating couplings is excluded up to a mass of 5.0 TeV in the e$\mu$ channel, up to 4.3 TeV in the e$\tau$ channel, and up to 4.1 TeV in the $\mu\tau$ channel. Quantum black holes in the benchmark model are excluded up to the threshold mass of 5.6 TeV in the e$\mu$ channel, 5.2 TeV in the e$\tau$ channel, and 5.0 TeV in the $\mu\tau$ channel. In addition, model-independent limits are extracted to allow comparisons with other models for the same final states and similar event selection requirements. The results of these searches provide the most stringent limits available from collider experiments for heavy particles that undergo lepton flavor violating decays.
Mass distributions for the e$\mu$ channel. In addition to the observed data (black points) and SM prediction (filled histograms), expected signal distributions for three models are shown: the RPV SUSY model with $\lambda = \lambda' = 0.01$ and $\tau$ sneutrino mass of 1.6 TeV, a Z′ boson ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) with a mass of 1.6 TeV , and the QBH signal expectation for $n=4$ and a threshold mass of 1.6 TeV. The bin width gradually increases with mass.
Mass distributions for the e$\tau$ channel. In addition to the observed data (black points) and SM prediction (filled histograms), expected signal distributions for three models are shown: the RPV SUSY model with $\lambda = \lambda' = 0.01$ and $\tau$ sneutrino mass of 1.6 TeV, a Z′ boson ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) with a mass of 1.6 TeV , and the QBH signal expectation for $n=4$ and a threshold mass of 1.6 TeV. The bin width gradually increases with mass.
Mass distributions for the $\mu\tau$ channel. In addition to the observed data (black points) and SM prediction (filled histograms), expected signal distributions for three models are shown: the RPV SUSY model with $\lambda = \lambda' = 0.01$ and $\tau$ sneutrino mass of 1.6 TeV, a Z′ boson ($\mathcal{B}=0.1$) with a mass of 1.6 TeV , and the QBH signal expectation for $n=4$ and a threshold mass of 1.6 TeV. The bin width gradually increases with mass.
A search for nonresonant Higgs boson (H) pair production via gluon and vector boson (V) fusion is performed in the four-bottom-quark final state, using proton-proton collision data at 13 TeV corresponding to 138 fb$^{-1}$ collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC. The analysis targets Lorentz-boosted H pairs identified using a graph neural network. It constrains the strengths relative to the standard model of the H self-coupling and the quartic VVHH couplings, $\kappa_{2V}$, excluding $\kappa_{2V}$ = 0 for the first time, with a significance of 6.3 standard deviations when other H couplings are fixed to their standard model values.
The data and fitted signal and background distributions for the $D_{b\overline{b}}$-subleading jet regressed mass for the ggF BDT event category 1. The SM $HH$ ($\kappa_{2V}=\kappa_{V}=\kappa_{\lambda}=1$) signal is scaled to the best fit signal strength $\mu=3.5$.
The distributions of the invariant mass of the $HH$ system after a background-only fit to the data, for the VBF low-purity, medium-purity, and high-purity categories. The VBF signal corresponds to $\kappa_{2V} = 0$, $\kappa_{V} = \kappa_{\lambda} = 1$, with the error bar indicating the prefit uncertainty.
Two-parameter profile likelihood test statistic ($-2\Delta\ln\mathcal{L}$) scan in data as a function of $\kappa_{\lambda}$ and $\kappa_{2V}$.
A search is reported for pairs of light Higgs bosons (H$_1$) produced in supersymmetric cascade decays in final states with small missing transverse momentum. A data set of LHC pp collisions collected with the CMS detector at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 138 fb$^{-1}$ is used. The search targets events where both H$_1$ bosons decay into $\mathrm{b\bar{b}}$ pairs that are reconstructed as large-radius jets using substructure techniques. No evidence is found for an excess of events beyond the background expectations of the standard model (SM). Results from the search are interpreted in the next-to-minimal supersymmetric extension of the SM, where a "singlino" of small mass leads to squark and gluino cascade decays that can predominantly end in a highly Lorentz-boosted singlet-like H$_1$ and a singlino-like neutralino of small transverse momentum. Upper limits are set on the product of the squark or gluino pair production cross section and the square of the $\mathrm{b\bar{b}}$ branching fraction of the H$_1$ in a benchmark model containing almost mass-degenerate gluinos and light-flavour squarks. Under the assumption of an SM-like H$_1$$\to$$\mathrm{b\bar{b}}$ branching fraction, H$_1$ bosons with masses in the range 40-120 GeV arising from the decays of squarks or gluinos with a mass of 1200 to 2500 GeV are excluded at 95% confidence level.
Reference acceptance times efficiency values for the kinematic selection and $H_T>3500\;\mathrm{GeV}$ requirements ($A_{\mathrm{kin}}$) for the benchmark signal model with different values of $m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}$. These values are independent of $m_{\mathrm{H_1}}$ within 2% in the range $30 \le m_{\mathrm{H_1}} \le 125\;\mathrm{GeV}$.
Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma\times\mathcal{B}^2(\mathrm{H}_1\rightarrow b\bar{b}) \times A_{\mathrm{kin}}$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_1}}$. The results are independent of $m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}$ within 10% in the range $1600<m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}<2800\;\mathrm{GeV}$.
Upper limits at 95% CL on $\sigma\times\mathcal{B}^2(\mathrm{H}_1\rightarrow b\bar{b})$ as a function of $m_{\mathrm{H_1}}$ for $m_{\mathrm{SUSY}}=1200\;\mathrm{GeV}$.
A search for invisible decays of the Higgs boson produced via vector boson fusion (VBF) has been performed with 101 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions delivered by the LHC at $\sqrt{s} =$ 13 TeV and collected by the CMS detector in 2017 and 2018. The sensitivity to the VBF production mechanism is enhanced by constructing two analysis categories, one based on missing transverse momentum, and a second based on the properties of jets. In addition to control regions with Z and W boson candidate events, a highly populated control region, based on the production of a photon in association with jets, is used to constrain the dominant irreducible background from the invisible decay of a Z boson produced in association with jets. The results of this search are combined with all previous measurements in the VBF topology, based on data collected in 2012 (at $\sqrt{s} =$ 8 TeV), 2015, and 2016, corresponding to integrated luminosities of 19.7, 2.3, and 36.3 fb$^{-1}$, respectively. The observed (expected) upper limit on the invisible branching fraction of the Higgs boson is found to be 0.18 (0.10) at the 95% confidence level, assuming the standard model production cross section. The results are also interpreted in the context of Higgs-portal models.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on ${{(\sigma_{\text{H}}/\sigma_{\text{H}}^{\mathrm{SM}}) \times {{\mathcal{B}(\text{H} \to \text{inv})}}}}$ for all three years of data taking, as well as their combination, assuming a SM Higgs boson with a mass of 125.38GeV.
The 90% CL upper limits on the spin-independent DM-nucleon scattering cross section in Higgs-portal models, assuming a scalar or fermion DM candidate.
Expected event yields in each $m_{jj}$ bin for the different background processes in the SR of the MTR category, in the 2017 and 2018 samples. The background yields and the corresponding uncertainties are obtained after performing a combined fit across all of the CRs and SR. The expected signal contributions for a Higgs boson, produced in the non-VBF and VBF modes, decaying to invisible particles with a branching fraction of $\mathcal{B}(\text{H} \to \text{inv}) = 1$, and the observed event yields are also reported.
Forum