Showing 10 of 1866 results
A search for the electroweak production of pairs of charged sleptons or charginos decaying into two-lepton final states with missing transverse momentum is presented. Two simplified models of $R$-parity-conserving supersymmetry are considered: direct pair-production of sleptons ($\tilde{\ell}\tilde{\ell}$), with each decaying into a charged lepton and a $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ neutralino, and direct pair-production of the lightest charginos $(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^\mp)$, with each decaying into a $W$-boson and a $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) is assumed to be the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). The analyses target the experimentally challenging mass regions where $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm)-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ are close to the $W$-boson mass (`moderately compressed' regions). The search uses 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV proton-proton collisions recorded by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. No significant excesses over the expected background are observed. Exclusion limits on the simplified models under study are reported in the ($\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) and ($\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm,\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) mass planes at 95% confidence level (CL). Sleptons with masses up to 150 GeV are excluded at 95% CL for the case of a mass-splitting between sleptons and the LSP of 50 GeV. Chargino masses up to 140 GeV are excluded at 95% CL for the case of a mass-splitting between the chargino and the LSP down to about 100 GeV.
<b>- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - -</b> <b>Title: </b><em>Search for direct pair production of sleptons and charginos decaying to two leptons and neutralinos with mass splittings near the $W$ boson mass in $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV $pp$ collisions with the ATLAS detector</em> <b>Paper website:</b> <a href="https://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/SUSY-2019-02/">SUSY-2019-02</a> <b>Exclusion contours</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal>Combined Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_up>Combined Observed Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_down>Combined Observed Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal>Combined Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_up>Combined Expected Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_down>Combined Expected Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_dM>Combined Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_up_dM>Combined Observed Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_down_dM>Combined Observed Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_dM>Combined Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_up_dM>Combined Expected Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_down_dM>Combined Expected Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_obs_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_exp_nominal>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_ee_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eLeL_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_eReR_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{e}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_obs_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_exp_nominal>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mm_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L,R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mLmL_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{L}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_obs_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_mRmR_exp_nominal_dM>$\tilde{\mu}_\mathrm{R}$ Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_SR0j>Combined Observed Nominal SR-0j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_SR0j>Combined Expected Nominal SR-0j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_obs_nominal_SR1j>Combined Observed Nominal SR-1j</a> <a href=?table=excl_comb_exp_nominal_SR1j>Combined Expected Nominal SR-1j</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_nominal>Observed Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_up>Observed Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_down>Observed Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Nominal</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Up</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal>Expected Down</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_nominal_dM>Observed Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_up_dM>Observed Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_obs_down_dM>Observed Down $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Nominal $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Up $(\Delta m)$</a> <a href=?table=excl_c1c1_exp_nominal_dM>Expected Down $(\Delta m)$</a> </ul> <b>Upper Limits</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=UL_slep>ULs</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=UL_c1c1>ULs</a> </ul> <b>Pull Plots</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=pullplot_slep>SRs summary plot</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=pullplot_c1c1>SRs summary plot</a> </ul> <b>Cutflows</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=Cutflow_slep_SR0j>Towards SR-0J</a> <a href=?table=Cutflow_slep_SR1j>Towards SR-1J</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=Cutflow_SRs>Towards SRs</a> </ul> <b>Acceptance and Efficiencies</b> <ul><li><b>Sleptons:</b> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_100_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_100_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_110_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_110_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_120_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_120_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_130_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_130_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_100_105>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_100_105>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_105_110>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_105_110>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_110_115>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_110_115>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_115_120>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_115_120>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_120_125>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_125_130>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_130_140>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_130_140>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR0j_MT2_140_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR0j_MT2_140_infty>SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_100_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_100_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_110_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_110_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_120_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_120_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_130_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_130_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_100_105>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_100_105>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_105_110>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_105_110>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_110_115>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_110_115>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_115_120>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_115_120>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_120_125>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_125_130>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_130_140>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_130_140>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR1j_MT2_140_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR1j_MT2_140_infty>SR-1j $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ Efficiency</a> <li><b>Charginos:</b> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_1_SF_77_1>SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_1_SF_77_1>SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_82_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_82_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_83_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_83_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_84_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_84_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_85_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_85_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_81_8125>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,8125]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_81_8125>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,8125]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8125_815>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,815]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8125_815>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,815]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_815_8175>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,8175]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_815_8175>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,8175]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8175_82>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,82]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8175_82>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,82]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_82_8225>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,8225]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_82_8225>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,8225]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8225_825>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,825]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8225_825>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,825]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_825_8275>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,8275]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_825_8275>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,8275]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8275_83>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,83]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8275_83>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,83]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_83_8325>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,8325]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_83_8325>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,8325]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8325_835>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,835]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8325_835>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,835]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_835_8375>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,8375]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_835_8375>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,8375]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_8375_84>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,84]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_8375_84>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,84]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_84_845>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,845]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_84_845>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,845]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_845_85>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,85]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_845_85>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,85]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_85_86>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,86]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_85_86>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,86]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_DF_86_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_DF_86_1>SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_77_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_77_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_78_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_78_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_79_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_79_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_80_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_80_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_77_775>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_77_775>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_775_78>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_775_78>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_78_785>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_78_785>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_785_79>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_785_79>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_79_795>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_79_795>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_795_80>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_795_80>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_80_81>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_80_81>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ Efficiency</a> <a href=?table=Acceptance_SR_SF_81_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Acceptance</a> <a href=?table=Efficiency_SR_SF_81_1>SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ Efficiency</a></ul> <b>Truth Code snippets</b>, <b>SLHA</b> and <b>machine learning</b> files are available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
Cutflow table for the slepton signal sample with $m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = (100,70)$ GeV, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in [100,\infty)$ region. The yields include the process cross section and are weighted to the 139 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity. 246000 events were generated for the sample.
Cutflow table for the slepton signal sample with $m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = (100,70)$ GeV, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in [100,\infty)$ region. The yields include the process cross section and are weighted to the 139 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity. 246000 events were generated for the sample.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models, with observed upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) overlaid, for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for direct selectron production in the (a) $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (c) $m(\tilde{e})-\Delta m(\tilde{e},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes, and for direct smuon production in the (b) $m(\tilde{\mu})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (d) $m(\tilde{\mu})-\Delta m(\tilde{\mu},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. In Figure (a) and (c) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{e}_{\textup{L}}$ and $\tilde{e}_{\textup{R}}$. In Figure (b) and (d) the observed (solid thick lines) and expected (dashed lines) exclusion contours are indicated for combined $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L,R}}$ and for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{L}}$. No unique sensitivity to $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ is observed. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown in the shaded areas.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The red contour shows the exclusion limits obtained using both the SR-0J and SR-1J region, as presented in Figure 6. The blue and green contours correspond to the result obtained considering only SR-0J and SR-1J region respectively. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.
The upper panel shows the observed number of events in each of the binned SRs defined in Table 3, together with the expected SM backgrounds obtained after applying the efficiency correction method to compute the number of expected FSB events. `Others' include the non-dominant background sources, e.g. $t \bar{t}$+$V$, Higgs boson and Drell--Yan events. The uncertainty band includes systematic and statistical errors from all sources. The distributions of two signal points with mass splittings $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = 30$ GeV and $\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = 50$ GeV are overlaid. The lower panel shows the significance as defined in Ref. [115].
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR$^{\text{-DF BDT-signal}\in(0.81,1]}_{\text{-SF BDT-signal}\in(0.77,1]}$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,0.8125]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,0.8125]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,0.815]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8125,0.815]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,0.8175]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.815,0.8175]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,0.82]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8175,0.82]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,0.8225]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.82,0.8225]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,0.825]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8225,0.825]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,0.8275]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.825,0.8275]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,0.83]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8275,0.83]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,0.8325]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.83,0.8325]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,0.835]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8325,0.835]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,0.8375]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.835,0.8375]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,0.84]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.8375,0.84]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,0.845]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.84,0.845]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,0.85]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.845,0.85]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,0.86]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.85,0.86]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-DF BDT-signal$\in(0.86,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.77,0.775]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.775,0.78]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.78,0.785]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.785,0.79]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.79,0.795]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.795,0.80]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.80,0.81]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^+\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ production with $W$-boson-mediated decay model, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in(0.81,1]$ inclusive region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.
Cutflow table for the chargino signal sample with $m\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0=(125,25)$ GeV, in the SR-SF BDT-signal$\in (0.77,1]$ and SR-DF BDT-signal$\in (0.81,1]$ regions. The yields include the process cross-section and are weighted to the 139 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity. 170000 events were generated for the sample.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models, with observed upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) overlaid, for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$-boson-mediated decays in the (a) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm})-\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown. In case of the search performed on ATLAS Run 1 data at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV no sensitivity was expected for the exclusion in the mass plane.
The upper panel shows the observed number of events in the SRs defined in Table 3, together with the expected SM backgrounds obtained after the background fit in the CRs. `Others' include the non-dominant background sources, e.g.$t \bar{t}$+$V$, Higgs boson and Drell--Yan events. The uncertainty band includes systematic and statistical errors from all sources. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison. The lower panel shows the significance as defined in Ref. [115].
A search for heavy Higgs bosons produced in association with a vector boson and decaying into a pair of vector bosons is performed in final states with two leptons (electrons or muons) of the same electric charge, missing transverse momentum and jets. A data sample of proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider between 2015 and 2018 is used. The data correspond to a total integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The observed data are in agreement with Standard Model background expectations. The results are interpreted using higher-dimensional operators in an effective field theory. Upper limits on the production cross-section are calculated at 95% confidence level as a function of the heavy Higgs boson's mass and coupling strengths to vector bosons. Limits are set in the Higgs boson mass range from 300 to 1500 GeV, and depend on the assumed couplings. The highest excluded mass for a heavy Higgs boson with the coupling combinations explored is 900 GeV. Limits on coupling strengths are also provided.
Comparison between data and SM predictions for the meff distributions in the boosted SR. The background predictions are obtained through a background-only simultaneous fit and are shown as filled histograms. The entries in overflow are included in the last bin. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty for the sum of the fitted background is indicated by the hatched band. The ratio of the data to the sum of the fitted background is shown in the lower panel. Two benchmark signal samples, as indicated in the legend, are also shown as unstacked unfilled histograms normalised to the integrated luminosity of the data using the theoretical cross-sections.
Comparison between data and SM predictions for the meff distributions in the resolved SR. The background predictions are obtained through a background-only simultaneous fit and are shown as filled histograms. The entries in overflow are included in the last bin. The size of the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty for the sum of the fitted background is indicated by the hatched band. The ratio of the data to the sum of the fitted background is shown in the lower panel. Two benchmark signal samples, as indicated in the legend, are also shown as unstacked unfilled histograms normalised to the integrated luminosity of the data using the theoretical cross-sections.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 300 GeV.
Expected 95% CL upper limits with 1-sigma uncertainty on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 300 GeV.
Expected 95% CL upper limits with 2-sigma uncertainty on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 300 GeV.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 300 GeV.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 600 GeV.
Expected 95% CL upper limits with 1-sigma uncertainty on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 600 GeV.
Expected 95% CL upper limits with 2-sigma uncertainty on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 600 GeV.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 600 GeV.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 900 GeV.
Expected 95% CL upper limits with 1-sigma uncertainty on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 900 GeV.
Expected 95% CL upper limits with 2-sigma uncertainty on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 900 GeV.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of fw and fww with mass equal to 900 GeV.
Observed (black solid curve) and expected (black dashed curve) 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of its mass with ( fW, fWW) fixed at (0, 6200). The green (inner) and yellow (outer) bands represent 1 and 2 sigma uncertainty in the expected limits. Theoretical predictions (red solid curve) as functions of the heavy Higgs boson mass are overlaid.
Observed (black solid curve) and expected (black dashed curve) 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy Higgs boson as functions of its mass with ( fW, fWW) fixed at (1350, 0). The green (inner) and yellow (outer) bands represent 1 and 2 sigma uncertainty in the expected limits. Theoretical predictions (red solid curve) as functions of the heavy Higgs boson mass are overlaid.
We present an observation of photon-photon production of $\tau$ lepton pairs in ultraperipheral lead-lead collisions. The measurement is based on a data sample with an integrated luminosity of 404 $\mu$b$^{-1}$ collected by the CMS experiment at a nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of 5.02 TeV. The $\gamma\gamma$$\to$$\tau^+\tau^-$ process is observed for $\tau\tau$ events with a muon and three charged hadrons in the final state. The measured fiducial cross section is $\sigma(\gamma\gamma$$\to$$\tau^+\tau^-)$ = 4.8 $\pm$ 0.6 (stat) $\pm$ 0.5 (syst) $\mu$b, in agreement with leading-order QED predictions. Using $\sigma(\gamma\gamma$$\to$$\tau^+\tau^-)$, we estimate a model-dependent value of the anomalous magnetic moment of the $\tau$ lepton of $a_\tau$ = 0.001 $^{+0.055}_{-0.089}$.
$\gamma\gamma\to\tau\tau$ fiducial cross section
$\gamma\gamma\to\tau\tau$ fiducial cross section
Limits on anomalous magnetic moment of the tau lepton
Limits on anomalous magnetic moment of the tau lepton
The STAR Collaboration reports measurements of the transverse single-spin asymmetries, $A_N$, for inclusive jets and identified `hadrons within jets' production at midrapidity from transversely polarized $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 200 GeV, based on data recorded in 2012 and 2015. The inclusive jet asymmetry measurements include $A_N$ for inclusive jets and $A_N$ for jets containing a charged pion carrying a momentum fraction $z>0.3$ of the jet momentum. The identified hadron within jet asymmetry measurements include the Collins effect for charged pions, kaons and protons, and the Collins-like effect for charged pions. The measured asymmetries are determined for several distinct kinematic regions, characterized by the jet transverse momentum $p_{T}$ and pseudorapidity $\eta$, as well as the hadron momentum fraction $z$ and momentum transverse to the jet axis $j_{T}$. These results probe higher momentum scales ($Q^{2}$ up to $\sim$ 900 GeV$^{2}$) than current, semi-inclusive deep inelastic scattering measurements, and they provide new constraints on quark transversity in the proton and enable tests of evolution, universality and factorization breaking in the transverse-momentum-dependent formalism.
Distribution of the normalized jet yield as a function of detector jet-$p_{T}$ in 2015 data and simulation. The lower panel shows the ratio between data and simulation.
Comparison of data with simulation for charged hadrons within jets in the 2015 data as a function of the hadron longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in two different ranges of jet-$p_{T}$.
Comparison of data with simulation for charged hadrons within jets in the 2015 data as a function of the hadron momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in two different ranges of jet-$p_{T}$.
Inclusive jet asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). The top panel shows results for jets that scatter forward relative to the polarized beam ($x_{F} > 0$).
Inclusive jet asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). the bottom panel shows jets that scatter backward to the polarized beam ($x_{F} < 0$).
Inclusive jet asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$ for jets that contain a charged pion with $z > 0.3$. The blue circles are for jets containing a high-$z$ $\pi^{+}$, while red squares are for jets containing a high-$z$ $\pi^{-}$.
Inclusive jet asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$ for jets that contain a charged pion with $z > 0.3$. The blue circles are for jets containing a high-$z$ $\pi^{+}$, while red squares are for jets containing a high-$z$ $\pi^{-}$.
Collins-like asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). The top panel shows results for jets that scatter forward relative to the polarized beam ($x_{F} > 0$).
Collins-like asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). The top panel shows results for jets that scatter forward relative to the polarized beam ($x_{F} > 0$).
Collins-like asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). The bottom panel shows jets that scatter backward with respect to the polarized beam ($x_{F} < 0$).
Collins-like asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). The bottom panel shows jets that scatter backward with respect to the polarized beam ($x_{F} < 0$).
Collins-like asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins-like asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins-like asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins-like asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins-like asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins-like asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins-like asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins-like asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins-like asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins-like asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins-like asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins-like asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-2\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$ separately for the 2012 and 2015 data. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). The top panel shows the results for jets that scatter forward relative to the polarized beam ($x_{F} > 0$), while the bottom panel shows jets that scatter backward to the polarized beam ($x_{F} < 0$).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$ separately for the 2012 and 2015 data. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). The top panel shows the results for jets that scatter forward relative to the polarized beam ($x_{F} > 0$), while the bottom panel shows jets that scatter backward to the polarized beam ($x_{F} < 0$).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$ separately for the 2012 and 2015 data. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). The top panel shows the results for jets that scatter forward relative to the polarized beam ($x_{F} > 0$), while the bottom panel shows jets that scatter backward to the polarized beam ($x_{F} < 0$).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$ separately for the 2012 and 2015 data. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). The top panel shows the results for jets that scatter forward relative to the polarized beam ($x_{F} > 0$), while the bottom panel shows jets that scatter backward to the polarized beam ($x_{F} < 0$).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$ separately for the 2012 and 2015 data. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). The top panel shows the results for jets that scatter forward relative to the polarized beam ($x_{F} > 0$), while the bottom panel shows jets that scatter backward to the polarized beam ($x_{F} < 0$).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$ separately for the 2012 and 2015 data. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). The top panel shows the results for jets that scatter forward relative to the polarized beam ($x_{F} > 0$), while the bottom panel shows jets that scatter backward to the polarized beam ($x_{F} < 0$).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$ separately for the 2012 and 2015 data. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). The top panel shows the results for jets that scatter forward relative to the polarized beam ($x_{F} > 0$), while the bottom panel shows jets that scatter backward to the polarized beam ($x_{F} < 0$).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$ separately for the 2012 and 2015 data. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). The top panel shows the results for jets that scatter forward relative to the polarized beam ($x_{F} > 0$), while the bottom panel shows jets that scatter backward to the polarized beam ($x_{F} < 0$).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). The top panel shows the results for jets that scatter forward relative to the polarized beam ($x_{F} > 0$), while the bottom panel shows jets that scatter backward to the polarized beam ($x_{F} < 0$).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). The top panel shows the results for jets that scatter forward relative to the polarized beam ($x_{F} > 0$), while the bottom panel shows jets that scatter backward to the polarized beam ($x_{F} < 0$).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). The top panel shows the results for jets that scatter forward relative to the polarized beam ($x_{F} > 0$), while the bottom panel shows jets that scatter backward to the polarized beam ($x_{F} < 0$).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and jet-$p_{T}$ (horizontal). The top panel shows the results for jets that scatter forward relative to the polarized beam ($x_{F} > 0$), while the bottom panel shows jets that scatter backward to the polarized beam ($x_{F} < 0$).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins, integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins, integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins, integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins, integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins, integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins, integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins, integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins, integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet $x_{T}~(= 2 p_T/\sqrt{s}$). The solid points show the results from this analysis of $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV $pp$ collisions, while the open points show previous STAR results for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $pp$ collisions from data recorded during 2011.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet $x_{T}~(= 2 p_T/\sqrt{s}$). The solid points show the results from this analysis of $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV $pp$ collisions, while the open points show previous STAR results for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $pp$ collisions from data recorded during 2011.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet $x_{T}~(= 2 p_T/\sqrt{s}$). The solid points show the results from this analysis of $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV $pp$ collisions, while the open points show previous STAR results for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $pp$ collisions from data recorded during 2011.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet $x_{T}~(= 2 p_T/\sqrt{s}$). The solid points show the results from this analysis of $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV $pp$ collisions, while the open points show previous STAR results for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $pp$ collisions from data recorded during 2011.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins. The solid points show the results from this analysis of $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV $pp$ collisions, while the open points show previous STAR results for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $pp$ collisions from data recorded during 2011.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins. The solid points show the results from this analysis of $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV $pp$ collisions, while the open points show previous STAR results for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $pp$ collisions from data recorded during 2011.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins. The solid points show the results from this analysis of $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV $pp$ collisions, while the open points show previous STAR results for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $pp$ collisions from data recorded during 2011.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins. The solid points show the results from this analysis of $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV $pp$ collisions, while the open points show previous STAR results for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $pp$ collisions from data recorded during 2011.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins. The solid points show the results from this analysis of $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV $pp$ collisions, while the open points show previous STAR results for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $pp$ collisions from data recorded during 2011.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins. The solid points show the results from this analysis of $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV $pp$ collisions, while the open points show previous STAR results for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $pp$ collisions from data recorded during 2011.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins. The solid points show the results from this analysis of $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV $pp$ collisions, while the open points show previous STAR results for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $pp$ collisions from data recorded during 2011.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins. The solid points show the results from this analysis of $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV $pp$ collisions, while the open points show previous STAR results for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $pp$ collisions from data recorded during 2011.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins. The solid points show the results from this analysis of $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV $pp$ collisions, while the open points show previous STAR results for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $pp$ collisions from data recorded during 2011.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins. The solid points show the results from this analysis of $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV $pp$ collisions, while the open points show previous STAR results for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $pp$ collisions from data recorded during 2011.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins. The solid points show the results from this analysis of $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV $pp$ collisions, while the open points show previous STAR results for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $pp$ collisions from data recorded during 2011.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins. The solid points show the results from this analysis of $\sqrt{s} = 200$ GeV $pp$ collisions, while the open points show previous STAR results for $\sqrt{s} = 500$ GeV $pp$ collisions from data recorded during 2011.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$, hadron-$z$, and hadron-$j_{T}$ for charged kaons (upper panels) and protons (lower panels) inside jets. In both cases, the $p_T$ dependence is shown integrated over the full ranges of $z$ and $j_T$, while the $z$ and $j_T$ dependences are shown integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represent the systematic uncertainties.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$, hadron-$z$, and hadron-$j_{T}$ for charged kaons (upper panels) and protons (lower panels) inside jets. In both cases, the $p_T$ dependence is shown integrated over the full ranges of $z$ and $j_T$, while the $z$ and $j_T$ dependences are shown integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represent the systematic uncertainties.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$, hadron-$z$, and hadron-$j_{T}$ for charged kaons (upper panels) and protons (lower panels) inside jets. In both cases, the $p_T$ dependence is shown integrated over the full ranges of $z$ and $j_T$, while the $z$ and $j_T$ dependences are shown integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represent the systematic uncertainties.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$, hadron-$z$, and hadron-$j_{T}$ for charged kaons (upper panels) and protons (lower panels) inside jets. In both cases, the $p_T$ dependence is shown integrated over the full ranges of $z$ and $j_T$, while the $z$ and $j_T$ dependences are shown integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represent the systematic uncertainties.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$, hadron-$z$, and hadron-$j_{T}$ for charged kaons (upper panels) and protons (lower panels) inside jets. In both cases, the $p_T$ dependence is shown integrated over the full ranges of $z$ and $j_T$, while the $z$ and $j_T$ dependences are shown integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represent the systematic uncertainties.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$, hadron-$z$, and hadron-$j_{T}$ for charged kaons (upper panels) and protons (lower panels) inside jets. In both cases, the $p_T$ dependence is shown integrated over the full ranges of $z$ and $j_T$, while the $z$ and $j_T$ dependences are shown integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represent the systematic uncertainties.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$, hadron-$z$, and hadron-$j_{T}$ for charged kaons (upper panels) and protons (lower panels) inside jets. In both cases, the $p_T$ dependence is shown integrated over the full ranges of $z$ and $j_T$, while the $z$ and $j_T$ dependences are shown integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represent the systematic uncertainties.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$, hadron-$z$, and hadron-$j_{T}$ for charged kaons (upper panels) and protons (lower panels) inside jets. In both cases, the $p_T$ dependence is shown integrated over the full ranges of $z$ and $j_T$, while the $z$ and $j_T$ dependences are shown integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represent the systematic uncertainties.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$, hadron-$z$, and hadron-$j_{T}$ for charged kaons (upper panels) and protons (lower panels) inside jets. In both cases, the $p_T$ dependence is shown integrated over the full ranges of $z$ and $j_T$, while the $z$ and $j_T$ dependences are shown integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represent the systematic uncertainties.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$, hadron-$z$, and hadron-$j_{T}$ for charged kaons (upper panels) and protons (lower panels) inside jets. In both cases, the $p_T$ dependence is shown integrated over the full ranges of $z$ and $j_T$, while the $z$ and $j_T$ dependences are shown integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represent the systematic uncertainties.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$, hadron-$z$, and hadron-$j_{T}$ for charged kaons (upper panels) and protons (lower panels) inside jets. In both cases, the $p_T$ dependence is shown integrated over the full ranges of $z$ and $j_T$, while the $z$ and $j_T$ dependences are shown integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represent the systematic uncertainties.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of particle jet-$p_{T}$, hadron-$z$, and hadron-$j_{T}$ for charged kaons (upper panels) and protons (lower panels) inside jets. In both cases, the $p_T$ dependence is shown integrated over the full ranges of $z$ and $j_T$, while the $z$ and $j_T$ dependences are shown integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represent the systematic uncertainties.
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's longitudinal momentum fraction, $z$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$z$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different jet-$p_{T}$ bins. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins, integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins, integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins, integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins, integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins, integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins, integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins, integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
Collins asymmetries, $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$, as a function of the charged pion's momentum transverse to the jet axis, $j_{T}$, in different hadron longitudinal momentum fraction $z$ bins, integrated over detector jet-$p_T > 9.9$ GeV/$c$. The bars show the statistical uncertainties, while the size of the boxes represents the systematic uncertainties on $A_{UT}^{\sin(\phi_{S}-\phi_{H})}$ (vertical) and hadron-$j_{T}$ (horizontal).
This paper presents studies of Bose-Einstein correlations (BEC) in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, using data from the ATLAS detector at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. Data were collected in a special low-luminosity configuration with a minimum-bias trigger and a high-multiplicity track trigger, accumulating integrated luminosities of 151 $\mu$b$^{-1}$ and 8.4 nb$^{-1}$ respectively. The BEC are measured for pairs of like-sign charged particles, each with $|\eta|$ < 2.5, for two kinematic ranges: the first with particle $p_T$ > 100 MeV and the second with particle $p_T$ > 500 MeV. The BEC parameters, characterizing the source radius and particle correlation strength, are investigated as functions of charged-particle multiplicity (up to 300) and average transverse momentum of the pair (up to 1.5 GeV). The double-differential dependence on charged-particle multiplicity and average transverse momentum of the pair is also studied. The BEC radius is found to be independent of the charged-particle multiplicity for high charged-particle multiplicity (above 100), confirming a previous observation at lower energy. This saturation occurs independent of the transverse momentum of the pair.
Comparison of single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q) and C<sub>2</sub><sup>MC</sup>(Q), with the two-particle double-ratio correlation function, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the opposite hemisphere (OHP) like-charge particles pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - interval 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV.
Comparison of single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q) and C<sub>2</sub><sup>MC</sup>(Q), with the two-particle double-ratio correlation function, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - interval 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV.
The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameter R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> for MB events using different MC generators in the calculation of R<sub>2</sub>(Q). The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.
The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameter R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> for HMT events using different MC generators in the calculation of R<sub>2</sub>(Q). The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.
The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameter R as a function of k<sub>T</sub> for MB events using different MC generators in the calculation of R<sub>2</sub>(Q). The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.
The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameter λ as a function of k<sub>T</sub> for MB events using different MC generators in the calculation of R<sub>2</sub>(Q). The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.
The two-particle double-ratio correlation function, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), for pp collisions for track p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV at √s=13 TeV in the multiplicity interval 71 ≤ n<sub>ch</sub> < 80 for the minimum-bias (MB) events. The blue dashed and red solid lines show the results of the exponential and Gaussian fits, respectively. The region excluded from the fits is shown. The statistical uncertainty and the systematic uncertainty for imperfections in the data reconstruction procedure are added in quadrature.
The two-particle double-ratio correlation function, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), for pp collisions for track p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV at √s=13 TeV in the multiplicity interval 231 ≤ n<sub>ch</sub> < 300 for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The blue dashed and red solid lines show the results of the exponential and Gaussian fits, respectively. The region excluded from the fits is shown. The statistical uncertainty and the systematic uncertainty for imperfections in the data reconstruction procedure are added in quadrature.
The dependence of the correlation strength, λ(m<sub>ch</sub>), on rescaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, obtained from the exponential fit of the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV at √s = 13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high multiplicity track (HMT) data. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the exponential fit of λ(m<sub>ch</sub>) for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The dependence of the correlation strength, λ(m<sub>ch</sub>), on rescaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, obtained from the exponential fit of the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV at √s = 13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high multiplicity track (HMT) data. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the exponential fit of λ(m<sub>ch</sub>) for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The dependence of the correlation strength, λ(m<sub>ch</sub>), on rescaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, obtained from the exponential fit of the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV at √s = 13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high multiplicity track (HMT) data. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the exponential fit of λ(m<sub>ch</sub>) for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The dependence of the correlation strength, λ(m<sub>ch</sub>), on rescaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, obtained from the exponential fit of the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV at √s = 13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high multiplicity track (HMT) data. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the exponential fit of λ(m<sub>ch</sub>) for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The dependence of the source radius, R(m<sub>ch</sub>), on m<sub>ch</sub>. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> < 1.2 for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.45 with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.6 with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The dependence of the source radius, R(m<sub>ch</sub>), on m<sub>ch</sub>. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> < 1.2 for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.45 with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.6 with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The dependence of the source radius, R(m<sub>ch</sub>), on m<sub>ch</sub>. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> < 1.2 for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.45 with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.6 with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The dependence of the source radius, R(m<sub>ch</sub>), on m<sub>ch</sub>. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> < 1.2 for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.45 with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.6 with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The dependence of the R(m<sub>ch</sub>) on ∛m<sub>ch</sub>. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> < 1.2 for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.45 with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.6 with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively
The dependence of the R(m<sub>ch</sub>) on ∛m<sub>ch</sub>. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> < 1.2 for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.45 with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.6 with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively
The dependence of the R(m<sub>ch</sub>) on ∛m<sub>ch</sub>. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> < 1.2 for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.45 with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.6 with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively
The dependence of the R(m<sub>ch</sub>) on ∛m<sub>ch</sub>. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic contributions. The black and blue solid curves represent the fit of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> < 1.2 for p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively. The black and blue dotted curves are extensions of the black and blue solid curves beyond ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.2, respectively. The black and brown dashed curves represent the saturation value of R(m<sub>ch</sub>) for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.45 with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for ∛m<sub>ch</sub> > 1.6 with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively
Comparison of single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pair reference sample, for minimum-bias (MB) events, showing C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q) (top panel) at 13 TeV (black circles) and 7 TeV (open blue circles), and the ratio of C<sub>2</sub><sup>7 TeV</sup> (Q) to C<sub>2</sub><sup>13 TeV</sup> (Q) (bottom panel). Comparison of C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup> (Q) for representative multiplicity region 3.09 < m<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 3.86. The statistical and systematic uncertainties, combined in quadrature, are presented. The systematic uncertainties include track efficiency, Coulomb correction, non-closure and multiplicity-unfolding uncertainties.
Comparison of single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pair reference sample, for minimum-bias (MB) events, showing C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q) (top panel) at 13 TeV (black circles) and 7 TeV (open blue circles), and the ratio of C<sub>2</sub><sup>7 TeV</sup> (Q) to C<sub>2</sub><sup>13 TeV</sup> (Q) (bottom panel). Comparison of C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup> (Q) for representative k<sub>T</sub> region 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤500 MeV. The statistical and systematic uncertainties, combined in quadrature, are presented. The systematic uncertainties include track efficiency, Coulomb correction, non-closure and multiplicity-unfolding uncertainties.
The k<sub>T</sub> dependence of the correlation strength, λ(k<sub>T</sub>), obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n<sub>ch</sub> ≥ 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV at √s=13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to λ(k<sub>T</sub>).
The k<sub>T</sub> dependence of the correlation strength, λ(k<sub>T</sub>), obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n<sub>ch</sub> ≥ 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV at √s=13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to λ(k<sub>T</sub>).
The k<sub>T</sub> dependence of the correlation strength, λ(k<sub>T</sub>), obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n<sub>ch</sub> ≥ 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV at √s=13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to λ(k<sub>T</sub>).
The k<sub>T</sub> dependence of the correlation strength, λ(k<sub>T</sub>), obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n<sub>ch</sub> ≥ 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV at √s=13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to λ(k<sub>T</sub>).
The k<sub>T</sub> dependence of the source radius, R(k<sub>T</sub>), obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n<sub>ch</sub> ≥ 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV at √s=13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to R(k<sub>T</sub>).
The k<sub>T</sub> dependence of the source radius, R(k<sub>T</sub>), obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n<sub>ch</sub> ≥ 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV at √s=13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to R(k<sub>T</sub>).
The k<sub>T</sub> dependence of the source radius, R(k<sub>T</sub>), obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n<sub>ch</sub> ≥ 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV at √s=13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to R(k<sub>T</sub>).
The k<sub>T</sub> dependence of the source radius, R(k<sub>T</sub>), obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions for events with multiplicity n<sub>ch</sub> ≥ 2 and transfer momentum of tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV at √s=13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The uncertainties represent the sum in quadrature of the statistical and systematic contributions. The curves represent the exponential fits to R(k<sub>T</sub>).
The two-dimensional dependence on m<sub>ch</sub> and k<sub>T</sub> for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV for the correlation strength, λ, obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions using the MB sample for m<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 3.08 and the HMT sample for m<sub>ch</sub> > 3.08.
The two-dimensional dependence on m<sub>ch</sub> and k<sub>T</sub> for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV for the source radius, R, obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions using the MB sample for m<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 3.08 and the HMT sample for m<sub>ch</sub> > 3.08.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected low m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected low m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected high m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected high m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.1 and 0.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.1 and 0.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.5 and 1.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.5 and 1.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected low m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected low m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected high m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected high m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.1 and 0.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.1 and 0.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.5 and 1.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.5 and 1.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The fit parameter μ describing the dependence of the correlation strength, λ, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter μ on m<sub>ch</sub> for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV (p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV).
The fit parameter μ describing the dependence of the correlation strength, λ, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter μ on m<sub>ch</sub> for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV (p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV).
The fit parameter μ describing the dependence of the correlation strength, λ, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter μ on m<sub>ch</sub> for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV (p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV).
The fit parameter μ describing the dependence of the correlation strength, λ, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter μ on m<sub>ch</sub> for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV (p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV).
The fit parameter ν describing the dependence of the correlation strength, λ, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter ν on m<sub>ch</sub> for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV (p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV).
The fit parameter ν describing the dependence of the correlation strength, λ, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter ν on m<sub>ch</sub> for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV (p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV).
The fit parameter ν describing the dependence of the correlation strength, λ, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter ν on m<sub>ch</sub> for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV (p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV).
The fit parameter ν describing the dependence of the correlation strength, λ, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid (blue dashed) curve represents the exponential fit of the dependence of parameter ν on m<sub>ch</sub> for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV (p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV).
The parameter ξ describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the saturated value of the parameter ξ for m<sub>ch</sub> > 3.0 for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for m<sub>ch</sub> > 2.8 for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The parameter ξ describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the saturated value of the parameter ξ for m<sub>ch</sub> > 3.0 for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for m<sub>ch</sub> > 2.8 for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The parameter ξ describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the saturated value of the parameter ξ for m<sub>ch</sub> > 3.0 for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for m<sub>ch</sub> > 2.8 for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The parameter ξ describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the saturated value of the parameter ξ for m<sub>ch</sub> > 3.0 for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for m<sub>ch</sub> > 2.8 for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The parameter κ describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the exponential fit to the parameter κ for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The parameter κ describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the exponential fit to the parameter κ for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The parameter κ describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the exponential fit to the parameter κ for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The parameter κ describing the dependence of the source radius, R, on charged-particle scaled multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for track p<sub>T</sub>>100 MeV and track p<sub>T</sub>>500 MeV in the minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) samples at √s = 13 TeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively. The black solid and blue dashed curves represent the exponential fit to the parameter κ for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >100 MeV and for tracks with p<sub>T</sub> >500 MeV, respectively.
The two-dimensional dependence on m<sub>ch</sub> and k<sub>T</sub> for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV for the correlation strength, λ, obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions using the MB sample for m<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 3.08 and the HMT sample for m<sub>ch</sub> > 3.08.
The two-dimensional dependence on m<sub>ch</sub> and k<sub>T</sub> for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV for the source radius, R, obtained from the exponential fit to the R<sub>2</sub>(Q) correlation functions using the MB sample for m<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 3.08 and the HMT sample for m<sub>ch</sub> > 3.08.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected low m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected low m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected high m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected high m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.5 and 1.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter λ for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.5 and 1.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected low m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected low m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected high m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of k<sub>T</sub> in selected high m<sub>ch</sub> intervals. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.5 and 1.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
The parameter R for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV as a function of m<sub>ch</sub> in k<sub>T</sub> intervals between 0.5 and 1.5 GeV. The error bars and boxes represent the statistical and systematic contributions, respectively.
ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> in pp interactions at 13 TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region∶ p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and |η|<2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to ∛n<sub>ch</sub> at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.
ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> in pp interactions at 13 TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region∶ p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and |η|<2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to ∛n<sub>ch</sub> at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.
ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> in pp interactions at 13 TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region∶ p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and |η|<2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to ∛n<sub>ch</sub> at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.
ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of ∛n<sub>ch</sub> in pp interactions at 13 TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region∶ p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and |η|<2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to ∛n<sub>ch</sub> at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.
ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of ∛n<sub>ch</sub> in pp interactions at 13 TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region∶ p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and |η|<2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to ∛n<sub>ch</sub> at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.
ATLAS and CMS results for the source radius R as a function of ∛n<sub>ch</sub> in pp interactions at 13 TeV. The CMS results (open circles) have been adjusted (by the CMS collaboration) to the ATLAS kinematic region∶ p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and |η|<2.5. The ATLAS uncertainties are the sum in quadrature of the statistical and asymmetric systematic uncertainties. For CMS, only the systematic uncertainties are shown since the statistical uncertainties are smaller than the marker size. The dashed blue (ATLAS) and black (CMS) lines represent the fit to ∛n<sub>ch</sub> at low multiplicity, continued as dotted lines beyond the fit range. The solid green (ATLAS) and broken black (CMS) lines indicate the plateau level at high multiplicity.
Systematic uncertainties (in percent) in the correlation strength, λ, and source radius, R, for the exponential fit of the two-particle double-ratio correlation functions, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV at √s= 13 TeV for the MB and HMT events. The choice of MC generator gives rise to asymmetric uncertainties, denoted by uparrow and downarrow. This asymmetry propagates through to the cumulative uncertainty. The columns under ‘Uncertainty range’ show the range of systematic uncertainty from the fits in the various n<sub>ch</sub> intervals.
The results of the fits to the dependencies of the correlation strength, λ, and source radius, R, on the average rescaled charged-particle multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, for |η| < 2.5 and both p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV at √s = 13 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) and the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events. The parameters γ and δ resulting from a joint fit to the MB and HMT data are presented. The total uncertainties are shown.
The results of the fits to the dependencies of the correlation strength, λ, and source radius, R, on the pair average transverse momentum, k<sub>T</sub>, for various functional forms and for minimum-bias (MB) and high-multiplicity track (HMT) events for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV and p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV at √s = 13 TeV. The total uncertainties are shown.
The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameters λ and R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> and k<sub>T</sub> using different MC generators in the calculation of R<sub>2</sub>(Q). (a) λ versus n<sub>ch</sub> for MB events, (b) λ versus n<sub>ch</sub> for HMT events, (c) λ versus k<sub>T</sub> and (d) R versus k<sub>T</sub> for MB events. The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.
The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameters λ and R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> and k<sub>T</sub> using different MC generators in the calculation of R<sub>2</sub>(Q). (a) λ versus n<sub>ch</sub> for MB events, (b) λ versus n<sub>ch</sub> for HMT events, (c) λ versus k<sub>T</sub> and (d) R versus k<sub>T</sub> for MB events. The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.
The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameters λ and R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> and k<sub>T</sub> using different MC generators in the calculation of R<sub>2</sub>(Q). (a) λ versus n<sub>ch</sub> for MB events, (b) λ versus n<sub>ch</sub> for HMT events, (c) λ versus k<sub>T</sub> and (d) R versus k<sub>T</sub> for MB events. The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.
The Bose-Einstein correlation (BEC) parameters λ and R as a function of n<sub>ch</sub> and k<sub>T</sub> using different MC generators in the calculation of R<sub>2</sub>(Q). (a) λ versus n<sub>ch</sub> for MB events, (b) λ versus n<sub>ch</sub> for HMT events, (c) λ versus k<sub>T</sub> and (d) R versus k<sub>T</sub> for MB events. The uncertainties shown are statistical. The lower panel of each plot shows the ratio of the BEC parameters obtained using EPOS LHC (red circles), Pythia 8 Monash (blue squares) and Herwig++ UE-EE-5 (green triangles) compared with the parameters obtained using Pythia 8 A2. The gray band in the lower panels is the MC systematic uncertainty, obtained as explained in the text.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 10, (b) 11 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 20, (c) 21 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 30, (d) 31 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 40, (e) 41 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 50, (f) 51 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 60, (g) 61 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 70, (h) 71 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 80 and (i) 81 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 100, (b) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 125, (c) 126 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 150, (d) 151 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (e) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 250. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 100, (b) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 125, (c) 126 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 150, (d) 151 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (e) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 250. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 100, (b) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 125, (c) 126 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 150, (d) 151 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (e) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 250. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 100, (b) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 125, (c) 126 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 150, (d) 151 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (e) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 250. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 100, (b) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 125, (c) 126 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 150, (d) 151 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (e) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 250. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 101 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 110, (b) 111 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 120, (c) 121 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 130, (d) 131 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 140, (e) 141 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 155, (f) 156 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 175, (g) 176 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 200, (h) 201 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 230 and (i) 231 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 300. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), for the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample for n<sub>ch</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 2 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 9, (b) 10 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 18, (c) 19 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 27, (d) 28 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 36, (e) 37 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 45, (f) 46 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 54, (g) 55 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 63, (h) 64 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 72, (i) 73 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 81, (j) 82 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 90, (k) 91 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 113, and (l) 114 < n<sub>ch</sub> ≤ 136. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The single-ratio two-particle correlation functions, C<sub>2</sub><sup>data</sup>(Q), at 7 TeV for the minimum-bias (MB) events using the unlike-charge particle (UCP) pairs reference sample k<sub>T</sub> - intervals∶ (a) 100 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 200 MeV, (b) 200 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 300 MeV, (c) 300 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 400 MeV, (d) 400 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 500 MeV, (e) 500 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 600 MeV, (f) 600 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 700 MeV, (g) 700 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1000 MeV, and (h) 1000 < k<sub>T</sub> ≤ 1500 MeV. The error bars represent the statistical uncertainties. The boxes represent the systematic uncertainties, which are the sum in quadrature of a variation of the Coulomb correction, the track reconstruction efficiency and the unfolding matrix.
The correlation strength, λ, and source radius, R, of the exponential fits to the two-particle double-ratio correlation functions, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), in dependence on the multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, intervals for the minimum-bias (MB) and the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV at √s = 13 TeV. Statistical uncertainties for √χ<sup>2</sup>/ndf>1 are corrected by the √χ<sup>2</sup>/ndf. The total uncertainties are shown.
The correlation strength, λ, and source radius, R, of the exponential fits to the two-particle double-ratio correlation functions, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), in dependence on the multiplicity, m<sub>ch</sub>, intervals for the minimum-bias (MB) and the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV at √s = 13 TeV. Statistical uncertainties for √χ<sup>2</sup>/ndf>1 are corrected by the √χ<sup>2</sup>/ndf. The total uncertainties are shown.
The correlation strength, λ, and source radius, R, of the exponential fits to the two-particle double-ratio correlation functions, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), in dependence on the pair transverse momentum, k<sub>T</sub>, intervals for the minimum-bias (MB) and the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events for p<sub>T</sub> > 100 MeV at √s = 13 TeV. Statistical uncertainties for √χ<sup>2</sup>/ndf>1 are corrected by the √χ<sup>2</sup>/ndf. The total uncertainties are shown.
The correlation strength, λ, and source radius, R, of the exponential fits to the two-particle double-ratio correlation functions, R<sub>2</sub>(Q), in dependence on the pair transverse momentum, k<sub>T</sub>, intervals for the minimum-bias (MB) and the high-multiplicity track (HMT) events for p<sub>T</sub> > 500 MeV at √s = 13 TeV. Statistical uncertainties for √χ<sup>2</sup>/ndf>1 are corrected by the √χ<sup>2</sup>/ndf. The total uncertainties are shown.
A search for events with two displaced vertices from long-lived particles (LLP) pairs using data collected by the ATLAS detector at the LHC is presented. This analysis uses 139~fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV recorded in 2015-2018. The search employs techniques for reconstructing vertices of LLPs decaying to jets in the muon spectrometer displaced between 3 m and 14 m with respect to the primary interaction vertex. The observed numbers of events are consistent with the expected background and limits for several benchmark signals are determined. For the Higgs boson with a mass of 125 GeV, the paper reports the first exclusion limits for branching fractions into neutral long-lived particles below 0.1%, while branching fractions above 10% are excluded at 95% confidence level for LLP proper lifetimes ranging from 4 cm to 72.4 m. In addition, the paper present the first results for the decay of LLPs into into $t\bar{t}$ in the ATLAS muon spectrometer.
Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the decay position of the LLP for some scalar portal samples in the MS barrel for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, “RPC 1/2” represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, “TGC 1” represents the first stations of TGC chambers and “L/S” indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors.
Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger as a function of the decay position of the LLP for some scalar portal samples in the MS endcaps for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, “RPC 1/2” represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, “TGC 1” represents the first stations of TGC chambers and “L/S” indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi=125$~\GeV\ for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, ``MDT 1/2'' represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and ``L/S'' indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi=125$~\GeV\ for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, ``MDT 1/2'' represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and ``L/S'' indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.
Expected and observed 95% CL limits on ($\sigma / \sigma_{\text{SM}}) \times B$ for $m_\phi=125$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.
Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, RPC 1/2 represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, TGC 1 represents the first stations of TGC chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors. The dependence on detector geometry can be seen by looking at the various detector boundaries depicted by dashed lines in the plots. In the barrel the trigger efficiency increases when the LLP decays are close to the end of the hadronic calorimeter (r ~ 4 m) and substantially decreases as the decay occurs closer to the middle station of the muon spectrometer (r ~ 7 m). For decays occurring close to the middle station the charged hadrons and photons (and their EM showers) are not spatially separated, resulting in low efficiency (the same reasoning is applicable to decays in the endcap regions).
Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, RPC 1/2 represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, TGC 1 represents the first stations of TGC chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors. The dependence on detector geometry can be seen by looking at the various detector boundaries depicted by dashed lines in the plots. In the barrel the trigger efficiency increases when the LLP decays are close to the end of the hadronic calorimeter (r ~ 4 m) and substantially decreases as the decay occurs closer to the middle station of the muon spectrometer (r ~ 7 m). For decays occurring close to the middle station the charged hadrons and photons (and their EM showers) are not spatially separated, resulting in low efficiency (the same reasoning is applicable to decays in the endcap regions).
Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, RPC 1/2 represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, TGC 1 represents the first stations of TGC chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors. The dependence on detector geometry can be seen by looking at the various detector boundaries depicted by dashed lines in the plots. In the barrel the trigger efficiency increases when the LLP decays are close to the end of the hadronic calorimeter (r ~ 4 m) and substantially decreases as the decay occurs closer to the middle station of the muon spectrometer (r ~ 7 m). For decays occurring close to the middle station the charged hadrons and photons (and their EM showers) are not spatially separated, resulting in low efficiency (the same reasoning is applicable to decays in the endcap regions).
Efficiency for the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where ``HCal end'' is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, RPC 1/2 represent the first/second stations of RPC chambers, TGC 1 represents the first stations of TGC chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in the Large or Small sectors. The dependence on detector geometry can be seen by looking at the various detector boundaries depicted by dashed lines in the plots. In the barrel the trigger efficiency increases when the LLP decays are close to the end of the hadronic calorimeter (r ~ 4 m) and substantially decreases as the decay occurs closer to the middle station of the muon spectrometer (r ~ 7 m). For decays occurring close to the middle station the charged hadrons and photons (and their EM showers) are not spatially separated, resulting in low efficiency (the same reasoning is applicable to decays in the endcap regions).
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency of the Muon RoI Cluster trigger in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for scalar portal samples with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for events passing the data quality requirements and having a reconstructed primary vertex. These efficiency distributions are based solely on MC simulation, without any corrections applied for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of transverse decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of longitudinal decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of transverse decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of longitudinal decay position of the LLP for non-SM Higgs benchmark samples for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS barrel fiducial volume as a function of the transverse decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS endcaps fiducial volume as a function of the longitudinal decay position of the LLP for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling. The vertical lines show the relevant detector boundaries, where “HCal end” is the outer limit of the hadronic calorimeter, MDT 1/2 represent the first/second stations of MDT chambers and L/S indicate whether they are in Large or Small sectors.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi = 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Efficiency to reconstruct an MS DV in the MS fiducial volume as a function of the LLP boost and decay position for a scalar portal sample with $m_\varPhi \ne 125$ GeV for vertices that pass the baseline event selection (except for the trigger) and satisfy the vertex isolation criteria. The efficiency distributions are corrected for mismodeling.
Expected and observed 95% CL limits on ($\sigma / \sigma_{\text{SM}}) \times B$ for $m_\phi=125$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.
Expected and observed 95% CL limits on ($\sigma / \sigma_{\text{SM}}) \times B$ for $m_\phi=125$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.
Expected and observed 95% CL limits on ($\sigma / \sigma_{\text{SM}}) \times B$ for $m_\phi=125$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.
Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=60$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.
Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=60$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.
Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=200$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.
Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=400$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.
Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=600$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.
Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=600$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.
Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=600$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.
Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=1000$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.
Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=1000$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.
Expected and observed 95% CL limits on $\sigma \times B$ for $m_\phi=1000$ GeV assuming 100% branching fraction of the long-lived scalar into fermion pairs.
The first study of the shapes of jets arising from bottom (b) quarks in heavy ion collisions is presented. Jet shapes are studied using charged hadron constituents as a function of their radial distance from the jet axis. Lead-lead (PbPb) collision data at a nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV were recorded by the CMS detector at the LHC, with an integrated luminosity of 1.69 nb$^{-1}$. Compared to proton-proton collisions, a redistribution of the energy in b jets to larger distances from the jet axis is observed in PbPb collisions. This medium-induced redistribution is found to be substantially larger for b jets than for inclusive jets.
Jet shapes, $\rho(\Delta r)$, for inclusive and b jets as function of $\Delta r$ from pp and PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.
Jet shapes, $\rho(\Delta r)$, for inclusive and b jets as function of $\Delta r$ from pp and PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.
Jet shapes, $\rho(\Delta r)$, for inclusive and b jets as function of $\Delta r$ from pp and PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.
Jet shape ratios ($\rho(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{PbPb}}/\rho(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{pp}}$) for inclusive and b jets as function of $\Delta r$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.
Jet shape ratios ($\rho(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{PbPb}}/\rho(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{pp}}$) for inclusive and b jets as function of $\Delta r$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.
Jet shape ratios ($\rho(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{PbPb}}/\rho(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{pp}}$) for inclusive and b jets as function of $\Delta r$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.
Transverse momentum profile difference $P(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{PbPb}}-P(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{pp}}$ vs. $\Delta r$ for inclusive and b jets at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.
Transverse momentum profile difference $P(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{PbPb}}-P(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{pp}}$ vs. $\Delta r$ for inclusive and b jets at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.
Transverse momentum profile difference $P(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{PbPb}}-P(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{pp}}$ vs. $\Delta r$ for inclusive and b jets at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.
Jet shape ratios ($\rho(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{b}}/\rho(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{incl.}}$) as function of $\Delta r$ from pp and PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}= 5.02$ TeV.
Jet shape ratios ($\rho(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{b}}/\rho(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{incl.}}$) as function of $\Delta r$ from pp and PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.
Jet shape ratios ($\rho(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{b}}/\rho(\Delta r)_{\mathrm{incl.}}$) as function of $\Delta r$ from pp and PbPb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}} = 5.02$ TeV.
The path-length dependent parton energy loss within the dense partonic medium created in lead-lead collisions at a nucleon-nucleon center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}$ = 5.02 TeV is studied by determining the azimuthal anisotropies for dijets with high transverse momentum. The data were collected by the CMS experiment in 2018 and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 1.69 nb$^{-1}$. For events containing back-to-back jets, correlations in relative azimuthal angle and pseudorapidity ($\eta$) between jets and hadrons, and between two hadrons, are constructed. The anisotropies are expressed as the Fourier expansion coefficients $v_n$, $n = $ 2-4 of these azimuthal distributions. The dijet $v_n$ values are extracted from long-range (1.5 $\lt$$\vert\Delta\eta\vert$$\lt$ 2.5) components of these correlations, which suppresses the background contributions from jet fragmentation processes. Positive dijet $v_2$ values are observed which increase from central to more peripheral events, while the $v_3$ and $v_4$ values are consistent with zero within experimental uncertainties.
The dijet $v_{n}$ data points factorized using different associated hadron pT bins for 0-10 % centrality bin. The data points are corrected for the jet reconstruction bias effects.
The dijet $v_{n}$ data points factorized using different associated hadron pT bins for 10-30 % centrality bin. The data points are corrected for the jet reconstruction bias effects.
The dijet $v_{n}$ data points factorized using different associated hadron pT bins for 30-50 % centrality bin. The data points are corrected for the jet reconstruction bias effects.
Final dijet $v_{2}$, $v_{3}$ and $v_{4}$ results presented as a function of centrality.
Two-particle correlation measurements projected onto two-dimensional, transverse rapidity coordinates ($y_{T1},y_{T2}$), allow access to dynamical properties of the QCD medium produced in relativistic heavy-ion collisions that angular correlation measurements are not sensitive to. We report non-identified charged-particle correlations for Au + Au minimum-bias collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$ = 200 GeV taken by the STAR experiment at the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider (RHIC). Correlations are presented as 2D functions of transverse rapidity for like-sign, unlike-sign and all charged-particle pairs, as well as for particle pairs whose relative azimuthal angles lie on the near-side, the away-side, or at all relative azimuth. The correlations are constructed using charged particles with transverse momentum $p_T \geq 0.15$ GeV/$c$, pseudorapidity from $-$1 to 1, and azimuthal angles from $-\pi$ to $\pi$. The significant correlation structures that are observed evolve smoothly with collision centrality. The major correlation features include a saddle shape plus a broad peak with maximum near $y_T \approx 3$, corresponding to $p_T \approx$ 1.5 GeV/$c$. The broad peak is observed in both like- and unlike-sign charge combinations and in near- and away-side relative azimuthal angles. The all-charge, all-azimuth correlation measurements are compared with the theoretical predictions of {\sc hijing} and {\sc epos}. The results indicate that the correlations for peripheral to mid-central collisions can be approximately described as a superposition of nucleon + nucleon collisions with minimal effects from the QCD medium. Strong medium effects are indicated in mid- to most-central collisions.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, all-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-LS, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-US, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CI, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, NS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 84-93%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 74-84%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 64-74%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 55-64%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 46-55%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 38-46%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 28-38%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 18-28%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 9-18%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 5-9%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Two-dimensional correlations of charged-hadrons, AS-CD, projected onto (y_t1, y_t2), in centrality bin 0-5%. Only centrality bins 74-84%, 46 - 55%, 18-28%, and 0-5% shown in paper.
Fit results for the amplitudes of the measured and predicted correlation peak near (yT 1, yT 2) ≈ (3,3) as a function of centrality
Fit results for the yTSigma_0 of the measured and predicted correlation peak near (yT 1, yT 2) ≈ (3,3) as a function of centrality
Fit results for the amplitudes of the measured and predicted correlation peak near (yT 1, yT 2) ≈ (3,1) as a function of centrality
Fit results for the yT_1 of the measured and predicted correlation peak near (yT 1, yT 2) ≈ (3,1) as a function of centrality
Fit results for the yT_2 of the measured and predicted correlation peak near (yT 1, yT 2) ≈ (3,1) as a function of centrality
Measurements of the elliptic flow coefficient relative to the collision plane defined by the spectator neutrons $v_2${$\Psi_{\rm SP}$} in collisions of Pb ions at center-of-mass energy per nucleon-nucleon pair $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=2.76 TeV and Xe ions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}}$=5.44 TeV are reported. The results are presented for charged particles produced at midrapidity as a function of centrality and transverse momentum. The ratio between $v_2${$\Psi_{\rm SP}$} and the elliptic flow coefficient relative to the participant plane $v_2$4, estimated using four-particle correlations, deviates by up to 20% from unity depending on centrality. This observation differs strongly from the magnitude of the corresponding eccentricity ratios predicted by the TRENTo and the elliptic power models of initial state fluctuations that are tuned to describe the participant plane anisotropies. The differences can be interpreted as a decorrelation of the neutron spectator plane and the reaction plane because of fragmentation of the remnants from the colliding nuclei, which points to an incompleteness of current models of initial state fluctuations. A significant transverse momentum dependence of the ratio $v_2${$\Psi_{\rm SP}$}/$v_2${4} is observed in all but the most central collisions, which may help to understand whether momentum anisotropies at low and intermediate transverse momentum have a common origin in initial state fluctuations. The ratios of $v_2${$\Psi_{\rm SP}$} and $v_2${4} to the corresponding initial state eccentricities for Xe-Xe and Pb-Pb collisions at similar initial entropy density show a difference of $(7.0 \pm 0.9)$% with an additional variation of +1.8% when including RHIC data in the TRENTo parameter extraction. These observations provide new experimental constraints for viscous effects in the hydrodynamic modeling of the expanding quark-gluon plasma.
Centrality dependence of $v_2\{\Psi_{\mathrm{SP}}\}$, $v_2\{2,|\Delta\eta|>1\}$, and $v_2\{4\}$ in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76~\mathrm{TeV}$.
Centrality dependence of $v_2\{\Psi_{\mathrm{SP}}\}$, $v_2\{2,|\Delta\eta|>1\}$, and $v_2\{4\}$ in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.44~\mathrm{TeV}$.
Centrality dependence of $v_2\{\Psi_{\mathrm{SP}}\}/v_2\{4\}$ and $v_2\{2,|\Delta\eta|>1\}/v_2\{4\}$ in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76~\mathrm{TeV}$.
Centrality dependence of $v_2\{\Psi_{\mathrm{SP}}\}/v_2\{4\}$ and $v_2\{2,|\Delta\eta|>1\}/v_2\{4\}$ in Xe-Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.44~\mathrm{TeV}$.
Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2\{\Psi_{\mathrm{SP}}\}$ for different centrality classes in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76~\mathrm{TeV}$.
Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2\{4\}$ for different centrality classes in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76~\mathrm{TeV}$.
Transverse momentum dependence of $v_2\{\Psi_{\mathrm{SP}}\}/v_2\{4\}$ for different centrality classes in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76~\mathrm{TeV}$.
Slopes of the Linear fits to the transverse momentum dependence of $v_2\{\Psi_{\mathrm{SP}}\}/v_2\{4\}$ for different centrality classes in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76~\mathrm{TeV}$.
Ratios of $v_2/\varepsilon_2$ as a function of $1/S\ \mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta$ in Xe--Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.44~\mathrm{TeV}$.
Ratios of $v_2/\varepsilon_2$ as a function of $1/S\ \mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta$ in Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76~\mathrm{TeV}$.
Ratios of $v_2/\varepsilon_2$ as a function of $1/S\ \mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta$ in Xe--Xe collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=5.44~\mathrm{TeV}$ divided by the linear Pb--Pb fits.
Ratios of $v_2/\varepsilon_2$ as a function of $1/S\ \mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta$ for Pb--Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=2.76~\mathrm{TeV}$ divided by the linear Pb--Pb fits.
Relative deviation of $v_2/\varepsilon_2$ as a function of $1/S\ \mathrm{d}N_{\mathrm{ch}}/\mathrm{d}\eta$ in Pb--Pb and Xe--Xe collisions.
When you search on a word, e.g. 'collisions', we will automatically search across everything we store about a record. But, sometimes you may wish to be more specific. Here we show you how.
Guidance and examples on the query string syntax can be found in the Elasticsearch documentation.
About HEPData Submitting to HEPData HEPData File Formats HEPData Coordinators HEPData Terms of Use HEPData Cookie Policy
Status
Email
Forum
Twitter
GitHub
Copyright ~1975-Present, HEPData | Powered by Invenio, funded by STFC, hosted and originally developed at CERN, supported and further developed at IPPP Durham.