Showing 10 of 566 results
A measurement of prompt photon-pair production in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV is presented. The data were recorded by the ATLAS detector at the LHC with an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. Events with two photons in the well-instrumented region of the detector are selected. The photons are required to be isolated and have a transverse momentum of $p_\mathrm{T,\gamma_{1(2)}} > 40(30)$ GeV for the leading (sub-leading) photon. The differential cross sections as functions of several observables for the diphoton system are measured and compared with theoretical predictions from state-of-the-art Monte Carlo and fixed-order calculations. The QCD predictions from next-to-next-to-leading-order calculations and multi-leg merged calculations are able to describe the measured integrated and differential cross sections within uncertainties, whereas lower-order calculations show significant deviations, demonstrating that higher-order perturbative QCD corrections are crucial for this process. The resummed predictions with parton showers additionally provide an excellent description of the low transverse-momentum regime of the diphoton system.
Differential cross section as a function of $p_{T,\gamma_{1}}$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.
Differential cross section as a function of $p_{T,\gamma_{2}}$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.
Integrated fiducial cross section measured in data and from different predictions.
Differential cross section as a function of $m_{\gamma\gamma}$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.
Differential cross section as a function of $p_{T,\gamma\gamma}$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.
Differential cross section as a function of $a_{T,\gamma\gamma}$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.
Differential cross section as a function of $\phi_{\eta}*$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.
Differential cross section as a function of $\pi-\Delta\phi_{\gamma\gamma}$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.
Differential cross section as a function of $|cos\theta*|^{(CS)}$. The table contains the values measured in data and theory predictions from SHERPA, DIPHOX and NNLOJET.
Exclusive dimuon production in ultraperipheral collisions (UPC), resulting from photon-photon interactions in the strong electromagnetic fields of colliding high-energy lead nuclei, $\mathrm{PbPb}(\gamma\gamma) \rightarrow \mu^+\mu^- (\mathrm{Pb}^{(\star)}\mathrm{Pb}^{(\star)} )$, is studied using $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{int}} = 0.48$ nb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}=5.02$ TeV lead-lead collision data at the LHC with the ATLAS detector. Dimuon pairs are measured in the fiducial region $p_{\mathrm{T}\mu} > 4$ GeV, $|\eta_{\mu}| < 2.4$, invariant mass $m_{\mu\mu} > 10$ GeV, and $p_{\mathrm{T,\mu\mu}} < 2$ GeV. The primary background from single-dissociative processes is extracted from the data using a template fitting technique. Differential cross sections are presented as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$, absolute pair rapidity ($|y_{\mu\mu}|$), scattering angle in the dimuon rest frame ($|\cos \vartheta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$) and the colliding photon energies. The total cross section of the UPC $\gamma \gamma \rightarrow \mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ process in the fiducial volume is measured to be $\sigma_{\mathrm{fid}}^{\mu\mu} = 34.1 \! \pm \! 0.3 \mathrm{(stat.)} \! \pm \! 0.7 \mathrm{(syst.)}$ $\mu\mathrm{b}$. Generally good agreement is found with calculations from STARlight, which incorporate the leading-order Breit-Wheeler process with no final-state effects, albeit differences between the measurements and theoretical expectations are observed. In particular, the measured cross sections at larger $|y_{\mu\mu}|$ are found to be about 10-20% larger in data than in the calculations, suggesting the presence of larger fluxes of photons in the initial state. Modification of the dimuon cross sections in the presence of forward and/or backward neutron production is also studied and is found to be associated with a harder incoming photon spectrum, consistent with expectations.
Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|y_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $10 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 20$ GeV.
Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|y_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $20 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 40$ GeV.
Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|y_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $40 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 80$ GeV.
Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|y_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $10 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 20$ GeV.
Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|y_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $20 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 40$ GeV.
Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight 2.0 shown as a function of $|y_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $40 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 80$ GeV.
Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $0 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 0.8$.
Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $0.8 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 1.6$.
Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $1.6 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 2.4$.
Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $0 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 0.8$.
Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $0.8 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 1.6$.
Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight 2.0 shown as a function of $|m_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $1.6 < |y_{\mu\mu}| < 2.4$.
Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $10 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 20$ GeV.
Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $20 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 40$ GeV.
Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $40 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 80$ GeV.
Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $10 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 20$ GeV.
Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $20 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 40$ GeV.
Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight 2.0 shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $40 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 80$ GeV.
Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $10 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 20$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.
Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $20 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 40$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.
Differential UPC dimuon cross sections shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $40 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 80$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.
Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $10 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 20$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.
Ratio of differential UPC dimuon xsects from data and STARlight shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $20 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 40$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.
Ratio of differential UPC dimuon cross sections from data and STARlight 2.0 shown as a function of $|\cos\theta^{\star}_{\mu\mu}|$ in the interval $40 < |m_{\mu\mu}| < 80$ GeV and $|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$.
Differential cross section as a function of k_max
Ratio of data/STARlight for differential cross sections as a function of k_max
Differential cross section as a function of k_min
Ratio of data/STARlight for differential cross sections as a function of k_min
Differential cross sections in $\alpha$ (acoplanarity) integrated over the full fiducial volume
Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $0<|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$
Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $10<|m_{\mu\mu}|<20$ GeV
Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $0.8<|y_{\mu\mu}|<1.6$
Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $20<|m_{\mu\mu}|<40$ GeV
Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $1.6<|y_{\mu\mu}|<2.4$
Fraction of Xn0n events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $40<|m_{\mu\mu}|<80$ GeV
Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $0<|y_{\mu\mu}|<0.8$
Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $10<|m_{\mu\mu}|<20$ GeV
Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $0.8<|y_{\mu\mu}|<1.6$
Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $20<|m_{\mu\mu}|<40$ GeV
Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $m_{\mu\mu}$ for $1.6<|y_{\mu\mu}|<2.4$
Fraction of XnXn events as a function of $y_{\mu\mu}$ for $40<|m_{\mu\mu}|<80$ GeV
A search for the supersymmetric partners of quarks and gluons (squarks and gluinos) in final states containing jets and missing transverse momentum, but no electrons or muons, is presented. The data used in this search were recorded by the ATLAS experiment in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV during Run 2 of the Large Hadron Collider, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The results are interpreted in the context of various $R$-parity-conserving models where squarks and gluinos are produced in pairs or in association and a neutralino is the lightest supersymmetric particle. An exclusion limit at the 95% confidence level on the mass of the gluino is set at 2.30 TeV for a simplified model containing only a gluino and the lightest neutralino, assuming the latter is massless. For a simplified model involving the strong production of mass-degenerate first- and second-generation squarks, squark masses below 1.85 TeV are excluded if the lightest neutralino is massless. These limits extend substantially beyond the region of supersymmetric parameter space excluded previously by similar searches with the ATLAS detector.
Observed $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distributions in signal regions MB-SSd. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed metSig distributions in signal regions MB-SSd. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distributions in signal regions MB-GGd. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed metSig distributions in signal regions MB-GGd. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distributions in signal regions MB-C. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed metSig distributions in signal regions MB-C. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed BDT-GGd1 score distributions in signal regions GGd1. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Observed BDT-GGo1 score distributions in signal regions GGo1. The histograms show the MC background predictions normalised by the background-only fit. The hatched (red) error bands indicate experimental and MC statistical uncertainties. Expected distributions for benchmark signal model points, normalised using the approximate NNLO+NNLL cross-section times integrated luminosity, are also shown for comparison (masses in GeV).
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd1
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd2
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd3
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd4
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo1
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo2
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo3
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo4
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-1600
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-2200
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-2800
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-1000
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-2200
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-3400
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 5j-1600
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-1000
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-2200
Signal region acceptance for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-3400
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd1. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd2. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd3. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR BDT-GGd4. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo1. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo2. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo3. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR BDT-GGo4. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-1600. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-2200. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with squark pair production and decays to a quark and neutralino in SR 2j-2800. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-1000. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-2200. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 4j-3400. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and neutralino in SR 5j-1600. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-1000. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-2200. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Signal region efficiency for simplified model with gluino pair production and decays to two quarks and chargino in SR 6j-3400. Efficiencies on signal points with low statistics are not reported. The efficiency value -1.0 in the table corresponds to the case where efficiency cannot be calculated due to the null acceptance of the model point.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and first- and second-generation squarks assuming squark pair production and direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with a dark dashed curve, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and first- and second-generation squarks assuming squark pair production and direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curve where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and non degenerated squark pair production and direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with a dark dashed curve, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and non degenerated squark pair production and direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curve where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and the gluino for gluino pair production with direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with a dark dashed curve, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and the gluino for gluino pair production with direct decays obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curve where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and squarks. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and squarks. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for squark pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the squark mass. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for squark pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the squark mass. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and gluinos. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits in the mass plane of the lightest neutralino and gluinos. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curve where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for gluino pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the gluino mass. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for gluino pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the gluino mass. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 0 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 0 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 995 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 995 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 1495 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The expected limits are indicated with dark dashed curves, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the $1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties.
Exclusion limits for the model with combined production of squark pairs, gluino pairs, and of squark--gluino pairs. The neutralino mass is fixed at 1495 GeV. Exclusion limits are obtained by using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The observed limits are indicated by the medium dark (maroon) curves where the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross-section by the renormalisation and factorisation scale and PDF uncertainties.
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for squark-pair production with direct decays.
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for gluino-pair production with direct decays
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for squark-pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino.
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for squark-pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60 GeV and exclusion limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the squark mass.
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for gluino-pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino.
The observed upper limits on signal cross section corresponding to the best expected signal region in each mass point for gluino-pair production with a one-step decay via an intermediate chargino. The neutralino mass is fixed at 60~GeV and exclusio limits are given for mass difference ratio, $X$, as a function of the gluino mass.
Cut-flow for model-independent search regions targeting squarks for SS direct model points. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.
Cut-flow for model-independent search regions targeting gluinos for GG direct model points. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$.
Cut-flow for model-independent search regions targeting squarks and gluinos in models with one-step decay. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.
Cut-flow for BDT search regions targeting gluinos in models with one-step decays. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.
Cut-flow for BDT search regions targeting gluinos in models with direct decays. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.
A search for a heavy resonance decaying into $WZ$ in the fully leptonic channel (electrons and muons) is performed. It is based on proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. No significant excess is observed over the Standard Model predictions and limits are set on the production cross section times branching ratio of a heavy vector particle produced either in quark-antiquark fusion or through vector-boson fusion. Constraints are also obtained on the mass and couplings of a singly charged Higgs boson, in the Georgi-Machacek model, produced through vector-boson fusion.
The signal selection acceptance times efficiency (A$\times\epsilon$), defined as the ratio of the number of MC signal events in the category to the number of generated signal events, is presented as a function of the Georgi-Machacek Model $H_5^\pm$ resonance mass in the VBF category. The A$\times\epsilon$ is shown for the combination of all decay channels. For the Georgi-Machacek Model $H_5^\pm$ samples, generator cuts are: $p_{\mathrm T}$ (jets) $>$ 15 GeV, $p_{\mathrm T}$ (leptons) $>$ 10 GeV, $|\eta|$(jets) $<$ 5 and $|\eta|$(leptons) $<$ 2.7. The decay of $W$ is to all flavors of leptons and of $Z$ to $e^+e^−$ and $\mu^+\mu^-$. The $Z$ to $\tau^+\tau-$ decays give a negligible contribution and were not included in the simulation, however the acceptancs shown here was scaled to include all decays. A systematic uncertainty was applied to cover the scaling uncertainty. The uncertainty shown represents the total statistical and systematic uncertainties.
The signal selection acceptance times efficiency (A$\times \epsilon$), defined as the ratio of the number of MC signal events in the category to the number of generated signal events, is presented as a function of the HVT resonance mass in the VBF category. The A$\times \epsilon$ is shown for the combination of all decay channels. For the HVT VBF samples, generator cuts are: m$_{jj} >$ 150 GeV. The decay of $W$ and $Z$ are to all flavors of leptons. The uncertainty shown represents the total statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Signal selection acceptance times efficiency (A$\times \epsilon$), defined as the ratio of the number of MC signal events in the category to the number of generated signal events, as a function of the HVT resonance mass for the quark-antiquark production. The $A\times\epsilon$ is shown for each decay channel and the inclusive one. The decay of $W$ and $Z$ are to all flavors of leptons. The uncertainty shown represents the total statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Observed and expected distributions of the $WZ$ invariant mass in the q$\bar{\mathrm q}$ category after applying all selection cuts. Background contributions are obtained from background-only likelihood fit to the data.
Observed and expected distributions of the $WZ$ invariant mass in the $VBF$ category after applying all selection cuts. Background contributions are obtained from background-only likelihood fit to the data.
Observed and expected 95% C.L. upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($W'\to W^\pm Z$) for the q$\bar{\mathrm q}$ production of a $W'$ boson in the HVT model as a function of its mass. The $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ uncertainty in the expected limits are given. Limits are calculated in the asymptotic approximation below 900 GeV and are obtained from pseudo-experiments above that.
Observed and expected 95% C.L. upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($W'\to W^\pm Z$) for the $VBF$ production of a $W'$ boson in the HVT model as a function of its mass. The $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ uncertainty are given in the expected limits. Limits are calculated in the asymptotic approximation below 700 GeV and are obtained from pseudo-experiments above that.
Observed and expected 95% C.L. upper limits on $\sigma\times$BR($H_5^\pm\to W^\pm Z$) of the Georgi-Machacek Model as a function of $m_{H_5^\pm}$. The $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ uncertainty in the expected limits are given. Limits are calculated in the asymptotic approximation below 700 GeV and are obtained from pseudo-experiments above that.
Observed and expected 95% C.L. upper limits on the parameter $\sin(\theta_H)$ of the Georgi-Machacek Model as a function of $m_{H_5^\pm}$. The $\pm1\sigma$ and $\pm2\sigma$ uncertainty are given in the expected limits. Limits are calculated in the asymptotic approximation below 700 GeV and are obtained from pseudo-experiments above that.
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 $139~fb^{-1}$.
This paper presents a measurement of quantities related to the formation of jets from high-energy quarks and gluons (fragmentation). Jets with transverse momentum 100 GeV $<p_T<$ 2.5 TeV and pseudorapidity $|\eta| < 2.1$ from an integrated luminosity of 33 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV proton-proton collisions are reconstructed with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. Charged-particle tracks with $p_T > 500$ MeV and $|\eta| < 2.5$ are used to probe the detailed structure of the jet. The fragmentation properties of the more forward and the more central of the two leading jets from each event are studied. The data are unfolded to correct for detector resolution and acceptance effects. Comparisons with parton shower Monte Carlo generators indicate that existing models provide a reasonable description of the data across a wide range of phase space, but there are also significant differences. Furthermore, the data are interpreted in the context of quark- and gluon-initiated jets by exploiting the rapidity dependence of the jet flavor fraction. A first measurement of the charged-particle multiplicity using model-independent jet labels (topic modeling) provides a promising alternative to traditional quark and gluon extractions using input from simulation. The simulations provide a reasonable description of the quark-like data across the jet $p_T$ range presented in this measurement, but the gluon-like data have systematically fewer charged particles than the simulations.
$\langle n_{ch} \rangle$, forward jet.
$\langle n_{ch} \rangle$, central jet.
$\langle \zeta \rangle$, forward jet.
$\langle \zeta \rangle$, central jet.
$\langle p_{T}^{rel} / GeV \rangle$, forward jet.
$\langle p_{T}^{rel} / GeV \rangle$, central jet.
$\langle r \rangle$, forward jet.
$\langle r \rangle$, central jet.
$\langle n_{ch} \rangle$, both jets.
$\langle \zeta \rangle$, combined jet.
$\langle p_{T}^{rel} / GeV \rangle$, both jets.
$\langle r \rangle$, both jets.
$n_{ch}$ , 100 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 200 GeV, both jets.
$n_{ch}$ , 200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 300 GeV, both jets.
$n_{ch}$ , 300 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 400 GeV, both jets.
$n_{ch}$ , 400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 500 GeV, both jets.
$n_{ch}$ , 500 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 600 GeV, both jets.
$n_{ch}$ , 600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 700 GeV, both jets.
$n_{ch}$ , 700 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 800 GeV, both jets.
$n_{ch}$ , 800 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 900 GeV, both jets.
$n_{ch}$ , 900 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1000 GeV, both jets.
$n_{ch}$ , 1000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1200 GeV, both jets.
$n_{ch}$ , 1200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1400 GeV, both jets.
$n_{ch}$ , 1400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1600 GeV, both jets.
$n_{ch}$ , 1600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2000 GeV, both jets.
$n_{ch}$ , 2000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2500 GeV, both jets.
$r$ , 100 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 200 GeV, both jets.
$r$ , 200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 300 GeV, both jets.
$r$ , 300 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 400 GeV, both jets.
$r$ , 400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 500 GeV, both jets.
$r$ , 500 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 600 GeV, both jets.
$r$ , 600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 700 GeV, both jets.
$r$ , 700 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 800 GeV, both jets.
$r$ , 800 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 900 GeV, both jets.
$r$ , 900 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1000 GeV, both jets.
$r$ , 1000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1200 GeV, both jets.
$r$ , 1200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1400 GeV, both jets.
$r$ , 1400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1600 GeV, both jets.
$r$ , 1600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2000 GeV, both jets.
$r$ , 2000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2500 GeV, both jets.
$\zeta$ , 100 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 200 GeV, both jets.
$\zeta$ , 200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 300 GeV, both jets.
$\zeta$ , 300 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 400 GeV, both jets.
$\zeta$ , 400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 500 GeV, both jets.
$\zeta$ , 500 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 600 GeV, both jets.
$\zeta$ , 600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 700 GeV, both jets.
$\zeta$ , 700 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 800 GeV, both jets.
$\zeta$ , 800 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 900 GeV, both jets.
$\zeta$ , 900 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1000 GeV, both jets.
$\zeta$ , 1000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1200 GeV, both jets.
$\zeta$ , 1200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1400 GeV, both jets.
$\zeta$ , 1400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1600 GeV, both jets.
$\zeta$ , 1600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2000 GeV, both jets.
$\zeta$ , 2000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2500 GeV, both jets.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 100 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 200 GeV, both jets.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 300 GeV, both jets.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 300 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 400 GeV, both jets.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 500 GeV, both jets.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 500 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 600 GeV, both jets.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 700 GeV, both jets.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 700 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 800 GeV, both jets.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 800 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 900 GeV, both jets.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 900 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1000 GeV, both jets.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 1000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1200 GeV, both jets.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 1200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1400 GeV, both jets.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 1400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1600 GeV, both jets.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 1600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2000 GeV, both jets.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 2000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2500 GeV, both jets.
$n_{ch}$ , 100 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 200 GeV, more forward jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 300 GeV, more forward jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 300 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 400 GeV, more forward jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 500 GeV, more forward jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 500 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 600 GeV, more forward jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 700 GeV, more forward jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 700 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 800 GeV, more forward jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 800 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 900 GeV, more forward jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 900 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1000 GeV, more forward jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 1000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1200 GeV, more forward jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 1200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1400 GeV, more forward jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 1400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1600 GeV, more forward jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 1600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2000 GeV, more forward jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 2000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2500 GeV, more forward jet.
$r$ , 100 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 200 GeV, more forward jet.
$r$ , 200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 300 GeV, more forward jet.
$r$ , 300 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 400 GeV, more forward jet.
$r$ , 400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 500 GeV, more forward jet.
$r$ , 500 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 600 GeV, more forward jet.
$r$ , 600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 700 GeV, more forward jet.
$r$ , 700 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 800 GeV, more forward jet.
$r$ , 800 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 900 GeV, more forward jet.
$r$ , 900 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1000 GeV, more forward jet.
$r$ , 1000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1200 GeV, more forward jet.
$r$ , 1200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1400 GeV, more forward jet.
$r$ , 1400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1600 GeV, more forward jet.
$r$ , 1600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2000 GeV, more forward jet.
$r$ , 2000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2500 GeV, more forward jet.
$\zeta$ , 100 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 200 GeV, more forward jet.
$\zeta$ , 200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 300 GeV, more forward jet.
$\zeta$ , 300 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 400 GeV, more forward jet.
$\zeta$ , 400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 500 GeV, more forward jet.
$\zeta$ , 500 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 600 GeV, more forward jet.
$\zeta$ , 600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 700 GeV, more forward jet.
$\zeta$ , 700 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 800 GeV, more forward jet.
$\zeta$ , 800 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 900 GeV, more forward jet.
$\zeta$ , 900 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1000 GeV, more forward jet.
$\zeta$ , 1000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1200 GeV, more forward jet.
$\zeta$ , 1200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1400 GeV, more forward jet.
$\zeta$ , 1400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1600 GeV, more forward jet.
$\zeta$ , 1600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2000 GeV, more forward jet.
$\zeta$ , 2000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2500 GeV, more forward jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 100 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 200 GeV, more forward jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 300 GeV, more forward jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 300 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 400 GeV, more forward jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 500 GeV, more forward jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 500 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 600 GeV, more forward jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 700 GeV, more forward jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 700 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 800 GeV, more forward jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 800 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 900 GeV, more forward jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 900 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1000 GeV, more forward jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 1000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1200 GeV, more forward jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 1200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1400 GeV, more forward jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 1400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1600 GeV, more forward jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 1600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2000 GeV, more forward jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 2000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2500 GeV, more forward jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 100 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 200 GeV, more central jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 300 GeV, more central jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 300 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 400 GeV, more central jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 500 GeV, more central jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 500 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 600 GeV, more central jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 700 GeV, more central jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 700 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 800 GeV, more central jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 800 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 900 GeV, more central jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 900 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1000 GeV, more central jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 1000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1200 GeV, more central jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 1200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1400 GeV, more central jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 1400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1600 GeV, more central jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 1600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2000 GeV, more central jet.
$n_{ch}$ , 2000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2500 GeV, more central jet.
$r$ , 100 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 200 GeV, more central jet.
$r$ , 200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 300 GeV, more central jet.
$r$ , 300 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 400 GeV, more central jet.
$r$ , 400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 500 GeV, more central jet.
$r$ , 500 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 600 GeV, more central jet.
$r$ , 600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 700 GeV, more central jet.
$r$ , 700 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 800 GeV, more central jet.
$r$ , 800 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 900 GeV, more central jet.
$r$ , 900 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1000 GeV, more central jet.
$r$ , 1000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1200 GeV, more central jet.
$r$ , 1200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1400 GeV, more central jet.
$r$ , 1400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1600 GeV, more central jet.
$r$ , 1600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2000 GeV, more central jet.
$r$ , 2000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2500 GeV, more central jet.
$\zeta$ , 100 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 200 GeV, more central jet.
$\zeta$ , 200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 300 GeV, more central jet.
$\zeta$ , 300 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 400 GeV, more central jet.
$\zeta$ , 400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 500 GeV, more central jet.
$\zeta$ , 500 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 600 GeV, more central jet.
$\zeta$ , 600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 700 GeV, more central jet.
$\zeta$ , 700 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 800 GeV, more central jet.
$\zeta$ , 800 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 900 GeV, more central jet.
$\zeta$ , 900 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1000 GeV, more central jet.
$\zeta$ , 1000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1200 GeV, more central jet.
$\zeta$ , 1200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1400 GeV, more central jet.
$\zeta$ , 1400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1600 GeV, more central jet.
$\zeta$ , 1600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2000 GeV, more central jet.
$\zeta$ , 2000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2500 GeV, more central jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 100 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 200 GeV, more central jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 300 GeV, more central jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 300 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 400 GeV, more central jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 500 GeV, more central jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 500 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 600 GeV, more central jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 700 GeV, more central jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 700 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 800 GeV, more central jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 800 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 900 GeV, more central jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 900 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1000 GeV, more central jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 1000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1200 GeV, more central jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 1200 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1400 GeV, more central jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 1400 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 1600 GeV, more central jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 1600 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2000 GeV, more central jet.
$p_{T}^{rel} / GeV$ , 2000 GeV < Jet p_{T} < 2500 GeV, more central jet.
The total uncertainty covariance matrix for the average number of tracks per jet $p_T$ bin. The covariance matrix is the sum of the covariance matrices for each source of systematic and statistical uncertainty. Note that the overall sign for the systematic uncertainty covariances is arbitrary.
The total uncertainty covariance matrix for the average fragmentation function per jet $p_T$ bin. The covariance matrix is the sum of the covariance matrices for each source of systematic and statistical uncertainty. Note that the overall sign for the systematic uncertainty covariances is arbitrary.
The total uncertainty covariance matrix for the average relative $p_T$ per jet $p_T$ bin. The covariance matrix is the sum of the covariance matrices for each source of systematic and statistical uncertainty. Note that the overall sign for the systematic uncertainty covariances is arbitrary.
The total uncertainty covariance matrix for the average r per jet $p_T$ bin. The covariance matrix is the sum of the covariance matrices for each source of systematic and statistical uncertainty. Note that the overall sign for the systematic uncertainty covariances is arbitrary.
The total uncertainty covariance matrix for the number of tracks. The first half of the bins on a given axis correspond to the more central jet while the second half correspond to the more forward jet. See Fig. 4 in the paper for more information about the binning. The covariance matrix is the sum of the covariance matrices for each source of systematic and statistical uncertainty. Note that the overall sign for the systematic uncertainty covariances is arbitrary.
The total uncertainty covariance matrix for the fragmentation function. The first half of the bins on a given axis correspond to the more central jet while the second half correspond to the more forward jet. See Fig. 4 in the paper for more information about the binning. The covariance matrix is the sum of the covariance matrices for each source of systematic and statistical uncertainty. Note that the overall sign for the systematic uncertainty covariances is arbitrary.
The total uncertainty covariance matrix for the relative $p_T$. The first half of the bins on a given axis correspond to the more central jet while the second half correspond to the more forward jet. See Fig. 4 in the paper for more information about the binning. The covariance matrix is the sum of the covariance matrices for each source of systematic and statistical uncertainty. Note that the overall sign for the systematic uncertainty covariances is arbitrary.
The total uncertainty covariance matrix for the r. The first half of the bins on a given axis correspond to the more central jet while the second half correspond to the more forward jet. See Fig. 4 in the paper for more information about the binning. The covariance matrix is the sum of the covariance matrices for each source of systematic and statistical uncertainty. Note that the overall sign for the systematic uncertainty covariances is arbitrary.
The results of a search for gluino and squark pair production with the pairs decaying via the lightest charginos into a final state consisting of two $W$ bosons, the lightest neutralinos ($\tilde\chi^0_1$), and quarks, are presented. The signal is characterised by the presence of a single charged lepton ($e^{\pm}$ or $\mu^{\pm}$) from a $W$ boson decay, jets, and missing transverse momentum. The analysis is performed using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data taken at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV delivered by the Large Hadron Collider and recorded by the ATLAS experiment. No statistically significant excess of events above the Standard Model expectation is found. Limits are set on the direct production of squarks and gluinos in simplified models. Masses of gluino (squark) up to 2.2 TeV (1.4 TeV) are excluded at 95% confidence level for a light $\tilde\chi^0_1$.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 2J b-veto N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 2J b-tag N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 4J b-veto N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 4J b-tag N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 6J b-veto N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{T}$ distribution in the SR 6J b-tag N-1 region. N-1 refers to all cuts except for the requirement on $m_T$ being applied. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 2J b-tag signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 2J b-veto signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J low-x b-tag signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J low-x b-veto signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J high-x b-tag signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J high-x b-veto signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 6J b-tag signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 6J b-veto signal region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. Including exemplary signal points. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino one-step x = 1/2 model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino one-step x = 1/2 model. space.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino one-step variable-x
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino one-step variable-x
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-step x = 1/2 model.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-step x = 1/2 model.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for one-flavour schemes in one-step x = 1/2 model.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for one-flavour schemes in one-step x = 1/2 model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-step variable-x
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-step variable-x
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-flavour schemes in variable-x
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-flavour schemes in variable-x
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model gluino one-step x = 1/2
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model gluino one-step variable-x
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model squark one-step x = 1/2
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model squark one-step variable-x
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model squark one-step x=1/2 in one-flavour schemes
Upper limits on the signal cross section for simplified model squark one-step variable-x in one-flavour schemes
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 2J b-tag validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 2J b-veto validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J b-tag validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 4J b-veto validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties. The value 9999 is used as a placeholder for infinity.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 6J b-tag validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Post-fit $m_{eff}$ distribution in the 6J b-veto validation region. Uncertainties include statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR2JBT. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR2JBV. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR4JBT. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR4JBV. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR6JBT. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Event selection cutflow for two representative signal samples for the SR6JBV. The gluino, squark, chargino and neutralino masses are reported. Weighted events including statistical uncertainties are shown.
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery high region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery low region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx discovery region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx discovery region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin4 region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery high region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J discovery low region for gluino production one-step x = 1/2 simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery high region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR2J discovery low region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx discovery region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jhx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx discovery region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR4Jlx b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Tag bin4 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin1 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin2 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models
Signal acceptance in SR6J b-Veto bin3 region for gluino production one-step variable-x simplified models