Showing 25 of 50 results
A search for Supersymmetry involving the pair production of gluinos decaying via third-generation squarks to the lightest neutralino is reported. It uses an LHC proton--proton dataset at a center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb$^{-1}$ collected with the ATLAS detector in 2015. The signal is searched for in events containing several energetic jets, of which at least three must be identified as $b$-jets, large missing transverse momentum and, potentially, isolated electrons or muons. Large-radius jets with a high mass are also used to identify highly boosted top quarks. No excess is found above the predicted background. For neutralino masses below approximately 700 GeV, gluino masses of less than 1.78 TeV and 1.76 TeV are excluded at the 95% CL in simplified models of the pair production of gluinos decaying via sbottom and stop, respectively. These results significantly extend the exclusion limits obtained with the $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV dataset.
Distribution of missing transverse energy for SR-Gbb-B.
Distribution of missing transverse energy for SR-Gtt-0L-C.
Distribution of missing transverse energy for SR-Gtt-1L-A.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gbb signal.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gbb signal.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gtt combination.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the Gtt combination.
Acceptances for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-A. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-A. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-B. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-C. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-A. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptances for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-B. Acceptance is evaluated at truth level, with only leptons from heavy bosons and taus considered, and no further quality or isolation criteria applied in their selection.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-A.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-A.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-B.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-C.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-A.
Acceptance times efficiency for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-A.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-A.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0L-C.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-A.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1L-B.
Signal region yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gbb model.
Signal region yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gtt model for the 0-lepton channel.
Signal region yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gtt model for the 1-lepton channel.
Combination of two 0-lepton and 1-lepton signal regions yielding the best expected sensitivity for each point of the parameter space in the Gtt model.
Results are reported of a search for new phenomena, such as supersymmetric particle production, that could be observed in high-energy proton--proton collisions. Events with large numbers of jets, together with missing transverse momentum from unobserved particles, are selected. The data analysed were recorded by the ATLAS experiment during 2015 using the 13 TeV centre-of-mass proton--proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, and correspond to an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb$^{-1}$. The search selected events with various jet multiplicities from $\ge 7$ to $\ge 10$ jets, and with various $b$-jet multiplicity requirements to enhance sensitivity. No excess above Standard Model expectations is observed. The results are interpreted within two supersymmetry models, where gluino masses up to 1400 GeV are excluded at 95% confidence level, significantly extending previous limits.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in validation region 7ej50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in validation region 6ej80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.
Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.
+1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.
-1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.
Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.
+1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.
-1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at no b-jet requirement. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at least 1 b-jet. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at least 2 b-jets. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Summary of all 15 signal regions (post-fit).
Signal region yielding the best-expected CLs value, the best expected CLs value, and the corresponding observed CLs value for the 2Step grid.
Signal region yielding the best-expected CLs value, the best expected CLs value, and the corresponding observed CLs value for the pMSSM grid.
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section for 2-step signal points for the best-expected signal region.
Performance of the 8j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 9j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 10j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 7j80-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the 8j80-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
The results of a search for the stop, the supersymmetric partner of the top quark, in final states with one isolated electron or muon, jets, and missing transverse momentum are reported. The search uses the 2015 LHC $pp$ collision data at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV recorded by the ATLAS detector and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb${}^{-1}$. The analysis targets two types of signal models: gluino-mediated pair production of stops with a nearly mass-degenerate stop and neutralino; and direct pair production of stops, decaying to the top quark and the lightest neutralino. The experimental signature in both signal scenarios is similar to that of a top quark pair produced in association with large missing transverse momentum. No significant excess over the Standard Model background prediction is observed, and exclusion limits on gluino and stop masses are set at 95% confidence level. The results extend the LHC Run-1 exclusion limit on the gluino mass up to 1460 GeV in the gluino-mediated scenario in the high gluino and low stop mass region, and add an excluded stop mass region from 745 to 780 GeV for the direct stop model with a massless lightest neutralino. The results are also reinterpreted to set exclusion limits in a model of vector-like top quarks.
Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the $am_\text{T2}$ distribution with the STCR1 event selection except for the requirement on $am_\text{T2}$. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.
Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the $b$-tagged jet multiplicity with the STCR1 event selection except for the requirement on the $b$-tagged jet multiplicity. Furthermore, the $\Delta R(b_1,b_2)$ requirement is dropped. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.
Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the $\Delta R(b_1,b_2)$ distribution with the STCR1 event selection except for the requirement on $\Delta R(b_1,b_2)$. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.
Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ distribution with the TZCR1 event selection except for the requirement on $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$. The variables $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$ are constructed in the same way as $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{T}$ but treating the leading photon transverse momentum as invisible. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.
Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$ distribution with the TZCR1 event selection except for the requirement on $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$. The variables $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$ are constructed in the same way as $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{T}$ but treating the leading photon transverse momentum as invisible. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.
Comparison of the observed data ($n_\text{obs}$) with the predicted background ($n_\text{exp}$) in the validation and signal regions. The background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between data and predicted background, where the significance is based on the total uncertainty ($\sigma_\text{tot}$).
Jet multiplicity distributions for events where exactly two signal leptons are selected. No correction factors are included in the background normalizations. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.
Jet multiplicity distributions for events where exactly one lepton plus one $\tau$ candidate are selected. No correction factors are included in the background normalizations. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.
The $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ distribution in SR1. In the plot, the full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement on $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow. Benchmark signal models are overlaid for comparison. The benchmark models are specified by the gluino and stop masses, given in TeV in the table.
The $m_\text{T}$ distribution in SR1. In the plot, the full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement on $m_\text{T}$. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow. Benchmark signal models are overlaid for comparison. The benchmark models are specified by the gluino and stop masses, given in TeV in the table.
Expected (black dashed) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ versus $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ for gluino-mediated stop production.
Observed (red solid) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ versus $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ for gluino-mediated stop production.
Expected (black dashed) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ versus $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ for direct stop production.
Observed (red solid) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ versus $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ for direct stop production.
The expected upper limits on $T$ quark pair production times the squared branching ratio for $T \rightarrow tZ$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass.
The observed upper limits on $T$ quark pair production times the squared branching ratio for $T \rightarrow tZ$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass.
The expected limits on $T$ quarks as a function of the branching ratios $B\left(T \rightarrow bW\right)$ and $B\left(T \rightarrow tH\right)$ for a $T$ quark with a mass of 800 GeV. The $T$ is assumed to decay in three possible ways: $T \to tZ$, $T \to tH$, and $T \to bW$.
The observed limits on $T$ quarks as a function of the branching ratios $B\left(T \rightarrow bW\right)$ and $B\left(T \rightarrow tH\right)$ for a $T$ quark with a mass of 800 GeV. The $T$ is assumed to decay in three possible ways: $T \to tZ$, $T \to tH$, and $T \to bW$.
The $m_\text{T}$ distribution in the WVR2-tail validation region which has the same preselection and jet $p_\text{T}$ requirements as SR2.
The $am_\text{T2}$ distribution in the WVR2-tail validation region which has the same preselection and jet $p_\text{T}$ requirements as SR2.
Large-radius jet mass ($R=1.2$), decomposed into the number of small-radius jet constituents. The lower panel shows the ratio of the total data to the total prediction (summed over all jet multiplicities). Events are required to have one lepton, four jets with $p_\text{T}>80,50,40,40$ GeV, at least one $b$-tagged jet, $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}>200$ GeV, and $m_\text{T}>30$ GeV.
Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^\tau$ in data for a selection enriched in $t\bar{t}$ events with one hadronically decaying $\tau$. Events that have no hadronic $\tau$ candidate (that passes the Loose identification criteria, as well as other requirements) are not shown in the plot.
Upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for the gluino-mediated stop models.
Upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for the models with direct stop pair production.
Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for the gluino-mediated stop models. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.
Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for models with direct stop pair production. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.
Expected $CL_s$ values for the gluino-mediated stop models.
Observed $CL_s$ values for the gluino-mediated stop models.
Expected $CL_s$ values for the direct stop pair production models.
Observed $CL_s$ values for the direct stop pair production models.
Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).
Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).
Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).
Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).
Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).
Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).
Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).
Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).
Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).
Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).
Acceptance for SR1 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.
Acceptance for SR1 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.
Acceptance for SR2 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.
Acceptance for SR2 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.
Acceptance for SR3 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.
Acceptance for SR3 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.
Efficiency for SR1 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).
Efficiency for SR1 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).
Efficiency for SR2 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).
Efficiency for SR2 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).
Efficiency for SR3 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).
Efficiency for SR3 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).
The result of a search for pair production of the supersymmetric partner of the Standard Model bottom quark ($\tilde{b}_1$) is reported. The search uses 3.2 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=$13 TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider in 2015. Bottom squarks are searched for in events containing large missing transverse momentum and exactly two jets identified as originating from $b$-quarks. No excess above the expected Standard Model background yield is observed. Exclusion limits at 95% confidence level on the mass of the bottom squark are derived in phenomenological supersymmetric $R$-parity-conserving models in which the $\tilde{b}_1$ is the lightest squark and is assumed to decay exclusively via $\tilde{b}_1 \rightarrow b \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, where $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ is the lightest neutralino. The limits significantly extend previous results; bottom squark masses up to 800 (840) GeV are excluded for the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass below 360 (100) GeV whilst differences in mass above 100 GeV between the $\tilde{b}_1$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ are excluded up to a $\tilde{b}_1$ mass of 500 GeV.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario.
Signal region (SR) providing the best expected sensitivity in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane.
Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the best expected signal region.
Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.
Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.
Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA450 signal region.
Cross-section upper limit in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRB signal region.
Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the best expected signal region.
Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA250.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA250.
Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA350.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA350.
Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA450 signal region.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA450.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRA450.
Expected CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRB signal region.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRB.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for signal region SRB.
Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the best expected signal region.
Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA250 signal region.
Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA350 signal region.
Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRA450 signal region.
Observed CLs values in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the SRB signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the best expected signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA250 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA350 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA450 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRB signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the best expected signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA250 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA350 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRA450 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane for the sbottom pair production scenario, for the SRB signal region.
Total experimental systematic uncertainty in percent on the signal efficiency times acceptance in the $m(\tilde b_1)$-$m(\tilde\chi^0_1)$ plane. The best expected signal region selection is used per point.
A search for squarks and gluinos in final states containing hadronic jets, missing transverse momentum but no electrons or muons is presented. The data were recorded in 2015 by the ATLAS experiment in $\sqrt{s}=$ 13 TeV proton--proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider. No excess above the Standard Model background expectation was observed in 3.2 fb$^{-1}$ of analyzed data. Results are interpreted within simplified models that assume R-parity is conserved and the neutralino is the lightest supersymmetric particle. An exclusion limit at the 95% confidence level on the mass of the gluino is set at 1.51 TeV for a simplified model incorporating only a gluino octet and the lightest neutralino, assuming the lightest neutralino is massless. For a simplified model involving the strong production of mass-degenerate first- and second-generation squarks, squark masses below 1.03 TeV are excluded for a massless lightest neutralino. These limits substantially extend the region of supersymmetric parameter space excluded by previous measurements with the ATLAS detector.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jl. For signal, a squark direct decay model with $m(\tilde q)=800$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=400$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jm. For signal, a gluino direct decay model with $m(\tilde g)=750$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=660$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jt. For signal, a squark direct decay model with $m(\tilde q)=1200$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=0$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4jt. For signal, a gluino direct decay model with $m(\tilde g)=1400$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=0$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR5j. For signal, a gluino one-step decay model with $m(\tilde g)=1265$ GeV, $m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)=945$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=625$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6jm. For signal, a gluino one-step decay model with $m(\tilde g)=1265$ GeV, $m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)=945$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=625$ GeV is shown.
Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6jt. For signal, a gluino one-step decay model with $m(\tilde g)=1385$ GeV, $m(\tilde\chi^\pm_1)=705$ GeV and $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=25$ GeV is shown.
Expected limit at 95% CL for squark direct decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for squark direct decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for squark direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL for squark direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for squark direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for squark direct decay model grid.
Expected limit at 95% CL for gluino direct decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino direct decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL for gluino direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino direct decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino direct decay model grid.
Expected limit at 95% CL for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Expected limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to experimental and background-only theoretical uncertainties for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL +1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Observed limits at 95% CL -1 sigma excursion due to the signal cross-section uncertainty for gluino one-step decay model grid.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR2jl.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR2jl.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR2jl.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR2jl.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR2jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR2jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR2jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR2jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR2jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR2jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR2jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR2jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR4jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR5j.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR5j.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR5j.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR5j.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR6jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR6jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR6jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR6jm.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRgamma for SR6jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in validation region VRZ for SR6jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRW for SR6jt.
Observed and expected background effective mass distributions in control region CRT for SR6jt.
Observed and expected event yields in VRZ as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRW as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRWv as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRT as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRTv as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRQa as a function of signal region.
Observed and expected event yields in VRQb as a function of signal region.
Signal acceptance for SR2jl in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jl in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jm in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jm in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR4jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR4jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR5j in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR5j in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jm in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jm in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jt in squark direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jl in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jl in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jm in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jm in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR4jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR4jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR5j in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR5j in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jm in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jm in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jt in gluino direct decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jl in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jl in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR2j5 in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR2jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR4jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR4jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR5j in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR5j in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jm in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance for SR6jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
Signal acceptance times efficiency for SR6jt in gluino one-step decay model grid.
A search for strongly produced supersymmetric particles is conducted using signatures involving multiple energetic jets and either two isolated leptons ($e$ or $\mu$) with the same electric charge or at least three isolated leptons. The search also utilises $b$-tagged jets, missing transverse momentum and other observables to extend its sensitivity. The analysis uses a data sample of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider in 2015 corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb$^{-1}$. No significant excess over the Standard Model expectation is observed. The results are interpreted in several simplified supersymmetric models and extend the exclusion limits from previous searches. In the context of exclusive production and simplified decay modes, gluino masses are excluded at 95% confidence level up to 1.1-1.3 TeV for light neutralinos (depending on the decay channel), and bottom squark masses are also excluded up to 540 GeV. In the former scenarios, neutralino masses are also excluded up to 550-850 GeV for gluino masses around 1 TeV.
Missing transverse momentum distribution after SR0b3j selection, beside the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ requirement. The results in the signal region correspond to the last inclusive bin. The systematic uncertainties include theory uncertainties for the backgrounds with prompt SS/3L and the full systematic uncertainties for data-driven backgrounds. For illustration the distribution for a benchmark SUSY scenario ($pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$, $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$, $m_{\tilde g}=1.3$ TeV, $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}=0.5$ TeV) is also shown.
Missing transverse momentum distribution after SR0b5j selection, beside the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ requirement. The results in the signal region correspond to the last inclusive bin. The systematic uncertainties include theory uncertainties for the backgrounds with prompt SS/3L and the full systematic uncertainties for data-driven backgrounds. For illustration the distribution for a benchmark SUSY scenario ($pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$, $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$, $m_{\tilde g}=1.1$ TeV, $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}=0.4$ TeV) is also shown.
Missing transverse momentum distribution after SR1b selection, beside the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ requirement. The results in the signal region correspond to the last inclusive bin. The systematic uncertainties include theory uncertainties for the backgrounds with prompt SS/3L and the full systematic uncertainties for data-driven backgrounds. For illustration the distribution for a benchmark SUSY scenario ($pp\to \tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$, $\tilde b_1\to tW\tilde\chi_1^0$, $m_{\tilde b_1}=600$ GeV, $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}=50$ GeV) is also shown.
Missing transverse momentum distribution after SR3b selection, beside the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ requirement. The results in the signal region correspond to the last inclusive bin. The systematic uncertainties include theory uncertainties for the backgrounds with prompt SS/3L and the full systematic uncertainties for data-driven backgrounds. For illustration the distribution for a benchmark SUSY scenario ($pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$, $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$, $m_{\tilde g}=1.2$ TeV, $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}=0.7$ TeV) is also shown.
Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar q(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR0b3j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar q(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR0b3j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar qWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR0b5j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar qWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR0b5j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ production and $\tilde b_1\to tW\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR1b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ production and $\tilde b_1\to tW\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR1b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR3b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR3b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].
A search for supersymmetry in events with large missing transverse momentum, jets, and at least one hadronically decaying tau lepton has been performed using 3.2 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV recorded by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider in 2015. Two exclusive final states are considered, with either exactly one or at least two tau leptons. No excess over the Standard Model prediction is observed in the data. Results are interpreted in the context of gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking and a simplified model of gluino pair production with tau-rich cascade decays, substantially improving on previous limits. In the GMSB model considered, supersymmetry-breaking scale ($\Lambda$) values below 92 TeV are excluded at the 95% confidence level, corresponding to gluino masses below 2000 GeV. For large values of $\tan\beta$, values of $\Lambda$ up to 107 TeV and gluino masses up to 2300 GeV are excluded. In the simplified model, gluino masses are excluded up to 1570 GeV for neutralino masses around 100 GeV. Neutralino masses up to 700 GeV are excluded for all gluino masses between 800 GeV and 1500 GeV, while the strongest exclusion of 750 GeV is achieved for gluino masses around 1400 GeV.
mTtau distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 1 tau channel, for the Compressed SR selection without the mTtau > 80 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Uncertainties are statistical only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "LM" refers to a low mass splitting, or compressed scenario, with m(gluino)=665 GeV and m(neutralino)=585 GeV; "MM" stands for a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV.
mTtau distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 1 tau channel, for the Medium Mass SR selection without the mTtau > 200 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Uncertainties are statistical only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "LM" refers to a low mass splitting, or compressed scenario, with m(gluino)=665 GeV and m(neutralino)=585 GeV; "MM" stands for a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV.
mTtau distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 1 tau channel, for the High Mass SR selection without the mTtau > 200 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Uncertainties are statistical only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "LM" refers to a low mass splitting, or compressed scenario, with m(gluino)=665 GeV and m(neutralino)=585 GeV; "MM" stands for a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV.
Kinematic distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 2-tau channel, for mTsum in the Compressed SR selection without the mTsum>1400 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Cited uncertainties are statistical uncertainties only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "MM" refers to a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV. The GMSB benchmark model corresponds to Lambda = 90 TeV and tanbeta = 40.
Kinematic distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 2-tau channel, for mTtau1+mTtau2 in the High-Mass SR selection without the mTtau1+mTtau2>350GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Cited uncertainties are statistical uncertainties only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "MM" refers to a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV. The GMSB benchmark model corresponds to Lambda = 90 TeV and tanbeta = 40.
Kinematic distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 2-tau channel, for HT in the GMSB SR selection without the HT > 1700 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Cited uncertainties are statistical uncertainties only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "MM" refers to a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV. The GMSB benchmark model corresponds to Lambda = 90 TeV and tanbeta = 40.
Expected exclusion contour at the 95% confidence level for the simplified model of gluino pair production, based on the combined results from the 1tau and 2tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data.
Observed exclusion contour at the 95% confidence level for the simplified model of gluino pair production, based on the combined results from the 1tau and 2tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data.
Expected exclusion contour at the 95% confidence level for the simplified model of gluino pair production, based on results from the 2tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data.
Expected exclusion contour at the 95% confidence level for the simplified model of gluino pair production, based on results from the 1tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data.
Observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the gauge-mediated supersymmetry-breaking model, based on results from the 2 tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data. Additional model parameters are M(mess) = 250 TeV, N5 = 3, mu>0 and Cgrav =1.
Expected exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the gauge-mediated supersymmetry-breaking model, based on results from the 2 tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data. Additional model parameters are M(mess) = 250 TeV, N5 = 3, mu>0 and Cgrav =1.
Observed upper cross section limits in pb for the simplified model of gluino pair production for the combination of all SRs.
Best expected signal region for the simplified model of gluino pair production. The respective SR has been used in the combination of the results.
Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the Compressed 1tau signal region.
Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the Compressed 1tau signal region.
Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the Compressed 1tau signal region.
Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the medium mass 1tau signal region.
Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the medium mass 1tau signal region.
Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the medium mass 1tau signal region.
Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 1tau signal region.
Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 1tau signal region.
Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 1tau signal region.
Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the compressed 2tau signal region.
Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the compressed 2tau signal region.
Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the compressed 2tau signal region.
Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 2tau signal region.
Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 2tau signal region.
Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 2tau signal region.
Acceptance for the GMSB model grid in the 2tau signal region.
Efficiency for the GMSB model grid in the 2tau signal region.
Acceptance times Efficiency for the GMSB model grid in the 2tau signal region.
A search for pair production of a scalar partner of the top quark in events with four or more jets plus missing transverse momentum is presented. An analysis of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}$=13 TeV proton-proton collisions collected using the ATLAS detector at the LHC yields no significant excess over the expected Standard Model background. To interpret the results a simplified supersymmetric model is used where the top squark is assumed to decay via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ and $\tilde{t}_1\rightarrow b\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \rightarrow b W^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, where $\tilde\chi^0_1$ ($\chi^\pm_1$) denotes the lightest neutralino (chargino). Exclusion limits are placed in terms of the top-squark and neutralino masses. Assuming a branching ratio of 100% to $t \tilde\chi^0_1$, top-squark masses in the range 450-950 GeV are excluded for $\tilde\chi^0_1$ masses below 160 GeV. In the case where $m_{\tilde{t}_1}\sim m_t+m_{\tilde\chi^0_1}$, top-squark masses in the range 235-590 GeV are excluded.
Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.
Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).
Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).
Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).
Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).
Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).
Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).
Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).
Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.
Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.
Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.
Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (800,100) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (750,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (750,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (750,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (800,100) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (750,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (750,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (600,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (400,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (400,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (400,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (600,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (400,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (400,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.
A search for heavy neutral Higgs bosons and $Z^{\prime}$ bosons is performed using a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ from proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV recorded by the ATLAS detector at the LHC during 2015 and 2016. The heavy resonance is assumed to decay to $\tau^+\tau^-$ with at least one tau lepton decaying to final states with hadrons and a neutrino. The search is performed in the mass range of 0.2-2.25 TeV for Higgs bosons and 0.2-4.0 TeV for $Z^{\prime}$ bosons. The data are in good agreement with the background predicted by the Standard Model. The results are interpreted in benchmark scenarios. In the context of the hMSSM scenario, the data exclude $\tan\beta > 1.0$ for $m_A$ = 0.25 TeV and $\tan\beta > 42$ for $m_A$ = 1.5 TeV at the 95% confidence level. For the Sequential Standard Model, $Z^{\prime}_\mathrm{SSM}$ with $m_{Z^{\prime}} < 2.42$ TeV is excluded at 95% confidence level, while $Z^{\prime}_\mathrm{NU}$ with $m_{Z^{\prime}} < 2.25$ TeV is excluded for the non-universal $G(221)$ model that exhibits enhanced couplings to third-generation fermions.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Despite listing this as an exclusive final state (as there must be no b-jets), there is no explicit selection on the presence of additional light-flavour jets. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. In the paper, the first bin is cut off at 60 GeV for aesthetics but contains underflows down to 50 GeV as in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 300, 500 and 800 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 10 in the hMSSM scenario are also provided.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Despite listing this as an exclusive final state (as there must be at least one b-jets), there is no explicit selection on the presence of additional light-flavour jets. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. In the paper, the first bin is cut off at 60 GeV for aesthetics but contains underflows down to 50 GeV as in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 300, 500 and 800 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 10 in the hMSSM scenario are also provided.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Despite listing this as an exclusive final state (as there must be no b-jets), there is no explicit selection on the presence of additional light-flavour jets. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 300, 500 and 800 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 10 in the hMSSM scenario are also provided.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Despite listing this as an exclusive final state (as there must be at least one b-jets), there is no explicit selection on the presence of additional light-flavour jets. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 300, 500 and 800 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 10 in the hMSSM scenario are also provided.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution for the b-inclusive selection in the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. In the paper, the first bin is cut off at 60 GeV for aesthetics but contains underflows down to 50 GeV as in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The prediction for a SSM Zprime with masses of 1500, 2000 and 2500 GeV are also provided.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution for the b-inclusive selection in the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The prediction for a SSM Zprime with masses of 1500, 2000 and 2500 GeV are also provided.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the Drell Yan production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Zprime boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass and the relative strength of the b-associated production.
Ratio of the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction for alternate Zprime models with respect to the SSM, both observed and expected are shown.
Acceptance, acceptance times efficiency and b-tag category fraction for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance, acceptance times efficiency and b-tag category fraction for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance and acceptance times efficiency for a heavy gauge boson produced by Drell Yan as a function of the gauge boson mass.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.
The results of a search for new heavy $W^\prime$ bosons decaying to an electron or muon and a neutrino using proton-proton collision data at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV are presented. The dataset was collected in 2015 and 2016 by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. As no excess of events above the Standard Model prediction is observed, the results are used to set upper limits on the $W^\prime$ boson cross-section times branching ratio to an electron or muon and a neutrino as a function of the $W^\prime$ mass. Assuming a $W^\prime$ boson with the same couplings as the Standard Model $W$ boson, $W^\prime$ masses below 5.1 TeV are excluded at the 95% confidence level.
Transverse mass distribution for events satisfying all selection criteria in the electron channel.
Transverse mass distribution for events satisfying all selection criteria in the electron channel.
Transverse mass distribution for events satisfying all selection criteria in the muon channel.
Transverse mass distribution for events satisfying all selection criteria in the muon channel.
Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM W' production and decay to the electron+neutrino channel as a function of the W' pole mass.
Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM W' production and decay to the electron+neutrino channel as a function of the W' pole mass.
Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM W' production and decay to the muon+neutrino channel as a function of the W' pole mass.
Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM W' production and decay to the muon+neutrino channel as a function of the W' pole mass.
Combined (electron and muon channels) upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM W' production and decay to a single lepton generation as a function of the W' pole mass.
Combined (electron and muon channels) upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM W' production and decay to a single lepton generation as a function of the W' pole mass.
Product of acceptance and efficiency for the electron and muon selections as a function of the W' pole mass.
Product of acceptance and efficiency for the electron and muon selections as a function of the W' pole mass.
A search for supersymmetry in events with large missing transverse momentum, jets, and at least one hadronically decaying $\tau$-lepton is presented. Two exclusive final states with either exactly one or at least two $\tau$-leptons are considered. The analysis is based on proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ delivered by the Large Hadron Collider and recorded by the ATLAS detector in 2015 and 2016. No significant excess is observed over the Standard Model expectation. At 95% confidence level, model-independent upper limits on the cross section are set and exclusion limits are provided for two signal scenarios: a simplified model of gluino pair production with $\tau$-rich cascade decays, and a model with gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking (GMSB). In the simplified model, gluino masses up to 2000 GeV are excluded for low values of the mass of the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP), while LSP masses up to 1000 GeV are excluded for gluino masses around 1400 GeV. In the GMSB model, values of the supersymmetry-breaking scale are excluded below 110 TeV for all values of $\tan\beta$ in the range $2 \leq \tan\beta \leq 60$, and below 120 TeV for $\tan\beta>30$.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.
2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.
2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.
Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ medium-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ medium-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ high-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ high-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ multibin SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ multibin SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ GMSB SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ GMSB SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Best performing fit setups entering the final combination as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass. 'S' marks the simultaneous fit of the four simplified model single-bin SRs, 'M' denotes the simultaneous fit of the two $1\tau$ SRs and the $2\tau$ multibin SR.
Best performing fit setups entering the final combination as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass. 'S' marks the simultaneous fit of the four simplified model single-bin SRs, 'M' denotes the simultaneous fit of the two $1\tau$ SRs and the $2\tau$ multibin SR.
Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.
Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.
Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.
Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.
Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of tanBeta and SUSY breaking mass scale Lambda.
Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of tanBeta and SUSY breaking mass scale Lambda.
Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Yields of the expected background from the SM in the bins of the multibin SR of the $2\tau$ channel with all bins being simultaneously used to constrain the background prediction. Expectation is given with the scalings computed in the combined fit applied. Uncertainties are statistial plus systematrics. Only the subsamples contributing the respective region are considered.
Yields of the expected background from the SM in the bins of the multibin SR of the $2\tau$ channel with all bins being simultaneously used to constrain the background prediction. Expectation is given with the scalings computed in the combined fit applied. Uncertainties are statistial plus systematrics. Only the subsamples contributing the respective region are considered.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the compressed $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the compressed $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the medium-mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the medium-mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the medium-mass $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the medium-mass $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the top VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the top VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the $W$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the $W$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the $Z$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the $Z$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ > 80 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ > 80 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ in the compressed SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ > 1600 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ in the compressed SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ > 1600 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the high-mass SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1100 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the high-mass SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1100 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
mT(tau_1) + mT(tau_2) in the multibin SR of the 2T channel. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
mT(tau_1) + mT(tau_2) in the multibin SR of the 2T channel. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the GMSB SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1900 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the GMSB SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1900 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
A search for a heavy charged-boson resonance decaying into a charged lepton (electron or muon) and a neutrino is reported. A data sample of 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV collected with the ATLAS detector at the LHC during 2015-2018 is used in the search. The observed transverse mass distribution computed from the lepton and missing transverse momenta is consistent with the distribution expected from the Standard Model, and upper limits on the cross section for $pp \to W^\prime \to \ell\nu$ are extracted ($\ell = e$ or $\mu$). These vary between 1.3 pb and 0.05 fb depending on the resonance mass in the range between 0.15 and 7.0 TeV at 95% confidence level for the electron and muon channels combined. Gauge bosons with a mass below 6.0 TeV and 5.1 TeV are excluded in the electron and muon channels, respectively, in a model with a resonance that has couplings to fermions identical to those of the Standard Model $W$ boson. Cross-section limits are also provided for resonances with several fixed $\Gamma / m$ values in the range between 1% and 15%. Model-independent limits are derived in single-bin signal regions defined by a varying minimum transverse mass threshold. The resulting visible cross-section upper limits range between 4.6 (15) pb and 22 (22) ab as the threshold increases from 130 (110) GeV to 5.1 (5.1) TeV in the electron (muon) channel.
Transverse mass distribution for events satisfying all selection criteria in the electron channel.
Transverse mass distribution for events satisfying all selection criteria in the muon channel.
Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM $W^\prime$ production and decay to the electron+neutrino channel as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM $W^\prime$ production and decay to the muon+neutrino channel as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Combined (electron and muon channels) upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for SSM $W^\prime$ production and decay to a single lepton generation as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to the electron+neutrino channel as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to the muon+neutrino channel as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Combined (electron and muon channels) observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to a single lepton generation as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the visible cross section in the electron+neutrino channel as a function of the transverse mass threshold.
Observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the visible cross section in the muon+neutrino channel as a function of the transverse mass threshold.
Product of acceptance and efficiency for the electron and muon selections as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Expected upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to the electron+neutrino channel as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Expected upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to the muon+neutrino channel as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
Combined (electron and muon channels) expected upper limits at the 95% CL on the cross section for generic $W^\prime$ production and decay to a single lepton generation as a function of the $W^\prime$ pole mass.
A search for heavy charged long-lived particles is performed using a data sample of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. The search is based on observables related to ionization energy loss and time of flight, which are sensitive to the velocity of heavy charged particles traveling significantly slower than the speed of light. Multiple search strategies for a wide range of lifetimes, corresponding to path lengths of a few meters, are defined as model-independently as possible, by referencing several representative physics cases that yield long-lived particles within supersymmetric models, such as gluinos/squarks ($R$-hadrons), charginos and staus. No significant deviations from the expected Standard Model background are observed. Upper limits at 95% confidence level are provided on the production cross sections of long-lived $R$-hadrons as well as directly pair-produced staus and charginos. These results translate into lower limits on the masses of long-lived gluino, sbottom and stop $R$-hadrons, as well as staus and charginos of 2000 GeV, 1250 GeV, 1340 GeV, 430 GeV and 1090 GeV, respectively.
- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - - <br/><br/> <b>Lower mass requirement for signal regions.</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table1">Gluinos and squarks</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table2">Staus and charginos</a></li> </ul> <b>Discovery regions:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table3">Yields</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table6">p0-values and limits</a></li> </ul> <b>Signal yield tables:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table4">MS-agnostic R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table5">Full-detector R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table7">MS-agnostic search for metastable gluino R-hadrons</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table8">Full-detector direct-stau search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table9">Full-detector chargino search</a></li> </ul> <b>Limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table10">Gluino R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table11">Sbottom R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table12">Stop R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table13">Stau search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table14">Chargino search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table15">Meta-stable gluino R-hadron search</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table17">Meta-stable gluino R-hadron search</a></li> </ul> <b>Acceptance and efficiency:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table16">MS-agnostic R-hadron search</a></li> </ul> <b>Truth quantities:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table18">Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table19">Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table20">Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table21">Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model</a></li> </ul> <b>Reinterpretation material:</b> <ul> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table22">ETmiss trigger efficiency as function of true ETmiss</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table23">Single-muon trigger efficiency as function of |eta| and beta</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table24">Candidate reconstruction efficiency for ID+Calo selection</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table25">Candidate reconstruction efficiency for loose selection</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table26">Efficiency for a loose candidate to be promoted to a tight candidate</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table27">Resolution and average of reconstructed dE/dx mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table28">Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates</a></li> <li><a href="86565?version=1&table=Table29">Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for FullDet candidates</a></li> </ul> <p><b>Pseudo-code snippets</b> and <b>example SLHA setups</b> are available in the "Resources" linked on the left, and more detailed reinterpretation material is available at <a href="http://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/SUSY-2016-32/hepdata_info.pdf">http://atlas.web.cern.ch/Atlas/GROUPS/PHYSICS/PAPERS/SUSY-2016-32/hepdata_info.pdf</a>.</p>
Lower mass requirement for signal regions.
Lower mass requirement for signal regions.
Expected and observed events in the 16 discovery regions along with the according control regions.
Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic R-hadron search.
Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector R-hadron search.
p0-values and model-independent upper limits on cross-section x acceptance x efficiency for the 16 discovery regions.
Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic search for metastable gluino R-hadrons.
Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector direct-stau search.
Expected signal yield and acceptance x efficiency, estimated background and observed number of events in data for the full range of simulated masses in the full-detector chargino search.
Upper cross-section limit in gluino R-hadron search.
Upper cross-section limit in sbottom R-hadron search.
Upper cross-section limit in stop R-hadron search.
Upper cross-section limit in stau search.
Upper cross-section limit in chargino search.
Lower mass limit as function of gluino lifetime.
Acceptance x efficiency, acceptance and efficiency for the full range of simulated masses in the MS-agnostic R-hadron search.
Upper cross-section limit in meta-stable gluino R-hadron search.
Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.
Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the generic model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.
Flavor composition of 800 GeV stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.
Flavor composition of 800 GeV anti-stop R-hadrons simulated using the Regge model as a function of radial distance from the interaction point.
ETmiss trigger efficiency as function of true ETmiss (EtmissTurnOn).
Single-muon trigger efficiency as function of $|\eta|$ and $\beta$ (SingleMuTurnOn).
Candidate reconstruction efficiency for ID+Calo selection (IDCaloEff).
Candidate reconstruction efficiency for loose selection (LooseEff).
Efficiency for a loose candidate to be promoted to a tight candidate (TightPromotionEff).
Resolution and average of reconstructed dE/dx mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates.
Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for ID+calo candidates.
Resolution and average of reconstructed ToF mass for a given simulated mass for FullDet candidates.
A search for long-lived particles decaying into an oppositely charged lepton pair, $\mu\mu$, $ee$, or $e\mu$, is presented using 32.8 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data collected at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV by the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Candidate leptons are required to form a vertex, within the inner tracking volume of ATLAS, displaced from the primary $pp$ interaction region. No lepton pairs with an invariant mass greater than 12 GeV are observed, consistent with the background expectations derived from data. The detection efficiencies for generic resonances with lifetimes ($c\tau$) of 100-1000 mm decaying into a dilepton pair with masses between 0.1-1.0 TeV are presented as a function of $p_T$ and decay radius of the resonances to allow the extraction of upper limits on the cross sections for theoretical models. The result is also interpreted in a supersymmetric model in which the lightest neutralino, produced via squark-antisquark production, decays into $\ell^{+}\ell^{'-}\nu$ ($\ell, \ell^{'} = e$, $\mu$) with a finite lifetime due to the presence of R-parity violating couplings. Cross-section limits are presented for specific squark and neutralino masses. For a 700 GeV squark, neutralinos with masses of 50-500 GeV and mean proper lifetimes corresponding to $c\tau$ values between 1 mm to 6 m are excluded. For a 1.6 TeV squark, $c\tau$ values between 3 mm to 1 m are excluded for 1.3 TeV neutralinos.
Results of a search for new particles decaying into eight or more jets and moderate missing transverse momentum are presented. The analysis uses 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton$-$proton collision data at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider between 2015 and 2018. The selection rejects events containing isolated electrons or muons, and makes requirements according to the number of $b$-tagged jets and the scalar sum of masses of large-radius jets. The search extends previous analyses both in using a larger dataset and by employing improved jet and missing transverse momentum reconstruction methods which more cleanly separate signal from background processes. No evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model is found. The results are interpreted in the context of supersymmetry-inspired simplified models, significantly extending the limits on the gluino mass in those models. In particular, limits on the gluino mass are set at 2 TeV when the lightest neutralino is nearly massless in a model assuming a two-step cascade decay via the lightest chargino and second-lightest neutralino.
Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin signal regions for the 8 jet regions.
Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin signal regions for the 9 jet regions.
Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin signal regions for the 10 jet regions.
Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin signal regions of the analysis.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid with the signal cross section increased by one sigma.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid with the signal cross section decreased by one sigma.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid plus one sigma from experimental systematics.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid minus one sigma from experimental systematics.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the two-step signal grid.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the Gtt signal grid.
Observed 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.
Expected 95% confidence level limit for the RPV signal grid.
$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
$\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ distribution in the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib. Two benchmark signal models are shown along with the background yields. These models, each representing a single mass point, are labelled 'RPV' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{t}}) = (1600, 600) \, \mathrm{GeV}$ and 'two-step' with $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Number of signal events expected for $139 \, \mathrm{fb}^{-1} $ after different analysis selections in the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib. This 'two-step' model requires that a strongly produced gluino decays into quarks, the W and Z bosons, and the lightest stable neutralino where $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}) = (1600, 100) \, \mathrm{GeV}$.
Acceptance for the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.
Efficiency for the signal region SR-8ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.
Acceptance for the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.
Efficiency for the signal region SR-9ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.
Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.
Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ340 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.
Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.
Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-0ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.
Acceptance for the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500 showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.
Efficiency for the signal region SR-10ij50-1ib-MJ500 showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.
Acceptance for the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.
Efficiency for the signal region SR-11ij50-0ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.
Acceptance for the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.
Efficiency for the signal region SR-12ij50-2ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.
Acceptance for the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib showing the acceptance for the complete two-step signal grid.
Efficiency for the signal region SR-9ij80-0ib showing the efficiency for the complete two-step signal grid.
The normalisation factors for the dominant backgrounds of the analysis in each of the multi-bin and single-bin regions.
Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin validation regions to test the $N_{\mathrm{jet}}$ extraction.
Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the single-bin validation regions to test the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ extrapolation.
Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin validation regions to test the $N_{\mathrm{jet}}$ extraction.
Post-fit yields for data and prediction in each of the multi-bin validation regions to test the $\mathcal{S}(E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}})$ extrapolation.
The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the two-step decay.
The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the Gtt decay.
The observed Cls from the best expected signal regions for the RPV decay.
Number of events in each signal region broken down by background type and the number of observed data events.
From left to right; the $95\%$ CL upper limits on the visible cross section (${\langle \epsilon\sigma \rangle}^{95}_{obs}$) and on the number of signal events. Next is the $95\%$ CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number of background events. The last two columns show the confidence level for the background only hypothesis ($CL_{b}$) and the dicovery $p$-value along with the Gaussian significance (Z).
Visualisation of the highest jet multiplicity event selected in signal regions targeting long cascade decays of pair-produced gluinos. This event was recorded by ATLAS on 23 October 2016, and contains 16 jets, illustrated by cones. Yellow blocks represent the calorimeter energy measured in noise-suppressed clusters. Of the reconstructed jets, 13 (11) have transverse momenta above 50 GeV (80 GeV), with 3 (2) being b-tagged. The leading jet has a transverse momentum of 507 GeV, and the sum of jet transverse momenta $H_T=2.9$ TeV. A value of 343 GeV is observed for the $E_{T}^{miss}$, whose direction is shown by the dashed red line, producing a significance $S(E_{T}^{miss})=6.4$. The sum of the masses of large-radius jets is evaluated as $M_{J}^{\Sigma}=1070$ GeV.
Visualisation of the highest jet multiplicity event selected in a control region used to make predictions of the background from multijet production. This event was recorded by ATLAS on 18 July 2018, and contains 19 jets, illustrated by cones. Yellow blocks represent the calorimeter energy measured in in noise-suppressed clusters. Of the reconstructed jets, 16 (10) have transverse momenta above 50 GeV (80 GeV). No jets were b-tagged. The leading et has a transverse momentum of 371 GeV, and the sum of jet transverse momenta $H_T=2.2$ TeV. A value of 8 GeV is observed for the $E_{T}^{miss}$, whose direction is shown by the dashed red line, producing a significance $S(E_{T}^{miss})=0.2$. The sum of the masses of large-radius jets is evaluated as $M_{J}^{\Sigma}=767$ GeV.
This paper presents a search for direct electroweak gaugino or gluino pair production with a chargino nearly mass-degenerate with a stable neutralino. It is based on an integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ of $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the LHC. The final state of interest is a disappearing track accompanied by at least one jet with high transverse momentum from initial-state radiation or by four jets from the gluino decay chain. The use of short track segments reconstructed from the innermost tracking layers significantly improves the sensitivity to short chargino lifetimes. The results are found to be consistent with Standard Model predictions. Exclusion limits are set at 95% confidence level on the mass of charginos and gluinos for different chargino lifetimes. For a pure wino with a lifetime of about 0.2 ns, chargino masses up to 460 GeV are excluded. For the strong production channel, gluino masses up to 1.65 TeV are excluded assuming a chargino mass of 460 GeV and lifetime of 0.2 ns.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Model dependent upper limits on cross-section (fb) for the electroweak production are shown by grey numbers in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Model dependent upper limits on cross-section (pb) for the electroweak production are shown by grey numbers in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Model dependent upper limits on cross-section (pb) for the electroweak production are shown by grey numbers in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Model dependent upper limits on cross-section (pb) for the electroweak production are shown by grey numbers in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Model dependent upper limits on cross-section (pb) for the electroweak production are shown by grey numbers in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the electroweak channel. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is defined as the probability of an event passing the signal region selection when an electroweak gaugino pair is produced in a pp collision.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the electroweak channel. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is defined as the probability of an event passing the signal region selection when an electroweak gaugino pair is produced in a pp collision.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the electroweak channel. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is defined as the probability of an event passing the signal region selection when an electroweak gaugino pair is produced in a pp collision.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the electroweak channel. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is defined as the probability of an event passing the signal region selection when an electroweak gaugino pair is produced in a pp collision.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the electroweak channel. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is defined as the probability of an event passing the signal region selection when an electroweak gaugino pair is produced in a pp collision.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the strong channel. In white regions, no simulation sample is available. The left-upper triangle region is not allowed kinematically in wino-LSP scenarios. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is calculated relative to events in which the gluinos decay into electroweak gaugino pairs.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the strong channel. In white regions, no simulation sample is available. The left-upper triangle region is not allowed kinematically in wino-LSP scenarios. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is calculated relative to events in which the gluinos decay into electroweak gaugino pairs.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the strong channel. In white regions, no simulation sample is available. The left-upper triangle region is not allowed kinematically in wino-LSP scenarios. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is calculated relative to events in which the gluinos decay into electroweak gaugino pairs.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the strong channel. In white regions, no simulation sample is available. The left-upper triangle region is not allowed kinematically in wino-LSP scenarios. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is calculated relative to events in which the gluinos decay into electroweak gaugino pairs.
Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the strong channel. In white regions, no simulation sample is available. The left-upper triangle region is not allowed kinematically in wino-LSP scenarios. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is calculated relative to events in which the gluinos decay into electroweak gaugino pairs.
The generator-level acceptance after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos as a function of the chargino $eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The generator-level acceptance after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).
The generator-level acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in direct electroweak production with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in direct electroweak production with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in direct electroweak production with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in direct electroweak production with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in direct electroweak production with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in the strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in the strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in the strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in the strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in the strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few electroweak signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few electroweak signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few electroweak signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few electroweak signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few electroweak signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few strong signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few strong signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few strong signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few strong signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few strong signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.
Systematic uncertainties in the signal event yields at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. The uncertainty in the cross-section of the strong production is large due to the large effect from the PDF uncertainty.
Systematic uncertainties in the signal event yields at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. The uncertainty in the cross-section of the strong production is large due to the large effect from the PDF uncertainty.
Systematic uncertainties in the signal event yields at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. The uncertainty in the cross-section of the strong production is large due to the large effect from the PDF uncertainty.
Systematic uncertainties in the signal event yields at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. The uncertainty in the cross-section of the strong production is large due to the large effect from the PDF uncertainty.
Systematic uncertainties in the signal event yields at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. The uncertainty in the cross-section of the strong production is large due to the large effect from the PDF uncertainty.
Observed events, expected background for null signal, and expected signal yields for two benchmark models: electroweak channel with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) and strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. Also shown are the probability of a background-only experiment being more signal-like than observed ($p_0$) and the upper limit on the model-independent visible cross-section at 95\% CL. The uncertainty in the total background yield is different from the sum of uncertainties in quadrature due to anticorrelation between different backgrounds.
Observed events, expected background for null signal, and expected signal yields for two benchmark models: electroweak channel with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) and strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. Also shown are the probability of a background-only experiment being more signal-like than observed ($p_0$) and the upper limit on the model-independent visible cross-section at 95\% CL. The uncertainty in the total background yield is different from the sum of uncertainties in quadrature due to anti-correlation between different backgrounds.
Observed events, expected background for null signal, and expected signal yields for two benchmark models: electroweak channel with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) and strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. Also shown are the probability of a background-only experiment being more signal-like than observed ($p_0$) and the upper limit on the model-independent visible cross-section at 95\% CL. The uncertainty in the total background yield is different from the sum of uncertainties in quadrature due to anti-correlation between different backgrounds.
Observed events, expected background for null signal, and expected signal yields for two benchmark models: electroweak channel with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) and strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. Also shown are the probability of a background-only experiment being more signal-like than observed ($p_0$) and the upper limit on the model-independent visible cross-section at 95\% CL. The uncertainty in the total background yield is different from the sum of uncertainties in quadrature due to anti-correlation between different backgrounds.
Observed events, expected background for null signal, and expected signal yields for two benchmark models: electroweak channel with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) and strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. Also shown are the probability of a background-only experiment being more signal-like than observed ($p_0$) and the upper limit on the model-independent visible cross-section at 95\% CL. The uncertainty in the total background yield is different from the sum of uncertainties in quadrature due to anti-correlation between different backgrounds.
Effects of systematic uncertainties on the signal exclusion significance at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. Effects of uncertainties on the fake-tracklet background is smaller in the strong channel analysis because the estimated number of the fake-tracket background events is small.
Effects of systematic uncertainties on the signal exclusion significance at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. Effects of uncertainties on the fake-tracklet background is smaller in the strong channel analysis because the estimated number of the fake-tracklet background events is small.
Effects of systematic uncertainties on the signal exclusion significance at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. Effects of uncertainties on the fake-tracklet background is smaller in the strong channel analysis because the estimated number of the fake-tracklet background events is small.
Effects of systematic uncertainties on the signal exclusion significance at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. Effects of uncertainties on the fake-tracklet background is smaller in the strong channel analysis because the estimated number of the fake-tracklet background events is small.
Effects of systematic uncertainties on the signal exclusion significance at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. Effects of uncertainties on the fake-tracklet background is smaller in the strong channel analysis because the estimated number of the fake-tracklet background events is small.
Cross-section upper limits for the strong production, presented in unit of fb. Left-upper triangle region is unphysical because the wino mass is larger than the gluino mass.
Cross-section upper limits for the strong production, presented in unit of fb. Left-upper triangle region is unphysical because the wino mass is larger than the gluino mass.
Cross-section upper limits for the strong production, presented in unit of fb. Left-upper triangle region is unphysical because the wino mass is larger than the gluino mass.
Cross-section upper limits for the strong production, presented in unit of fb. Left-upper triangle region is unphysical because the wino mass is larger than the gluino mass.
Cross-section upper limits for the strong production, presented in unit of fb. Left-upper triangle region is unphysical because the wino mass is larger than the gluino mass.
The results of a search for direct pair production of top squarks and for dark matter in events with two opposite-charge leptons (electrons or muons), jets and missing transverse momentum are reported, using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity from proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, collected by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider during Run 2 (2015-2018). This search considers the pair production of top squarks and is sensitive across a wide range of mass differences between the top squark and the lightest neutralino. Additionally, spin-0 mediator dark-matter models are considered, in which the mediator is produced in association with a pair of top quarks. The mediator subsequently decays to a pair of dark-matter particles. No significant excess of events is observed above the Standard Model background, and limits are set at 95% confidence level. The results exclude top squark masses up to about 1 TeV, and masses of the lightest neutralino up to about 500 GeV. Limits on dark-matter production are set for scalar (pseudoscalar) mediator masses up to about 250 (300) GeV.
Two-body selection. Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in $SR^{2-body}_{110,\infty}$ for (a) different-flavour and (b) same-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference dark-matter signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.
Two-body selection. Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in $SR^{2-body}_{110,\infty}$ for (a) different-flavour and (b) same-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference dark-matter signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Four-body selection. (a) distributions of $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Small\,\Delta m}$ and (b) distribution of $R_{2\ell 4j}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Large\,\Delta m}$ for events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panel indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Four-body selection. (a) distributions of $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Small\,\Delta m}$ and (b) distribution of $R_{2\ell 4j}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Large\,\Delta m}$ for events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panel indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the Observed limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}, DF}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}, SF}$ and $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t} Z}$. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Three-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{VR(1)}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$ and $\mathrm{VR(2)}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Four-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$,$\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $VR^{4-body}_{VV}$ and $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{VV,lll}$. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for the different-flavour leptons binned SRs. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for the same-flavour leptons binned SRs. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Three-body selection. Observed event yields and background fit results for the three-body selection SRs. The ''Others'' category contains contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Four-body selection. Observed event yields and background fit results for SR$^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{\mathrm{Small}\,\Delta m}$ and SR$^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{\mathrm{Large}\,\Delta m}$. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Exclusion limits contours (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with 100% branching ratio in $\tilde{t}_1--\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The exclusion limits contours for the two-body, three-body and four-body selections are respectively shown in blue, green and red.
Exclusion limits contours (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with 100% branching ratio in $\tilde{t}_1--\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The exclusion limits contours for the two-body, three-body and four-body selections are respectively shown in blue, green and red.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm 1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty.The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty.The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection Efficiency (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection Efficiency (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta\ m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection acceptance (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection acceptance (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Three-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal strenght for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Four-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal strenght for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Three-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Four-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for the $inclusive$ SRs. The Others category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=600~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=400~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the scalar signal model $t\bar{t} + \phi $ with $m(\phi)=150~ GeV$ and $m(\chi)=1~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the pseudoscalar signal model $t\bar{t} + a $ with $m(a)=150~ GeV$ and $m(\chi)=1~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=385~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=400~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=430~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=460~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=400~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=380~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=460~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=415~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=400~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=320~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
A search for heavy neutral Higgs bosons is performed using the LHC Run 2 data, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector. The search for heavy resonances is performed over the mass range 0.2-2.5 TeV for the $\tau^+\tau^-$ decay with at least one $\tau$-lepton decaying into final states with hadrons. The data are in good agreement with the background prediction of the Standard Model. In the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, values of $\tan\beta>8$ and $\tan\beta>21$ are excluded at the 95% confidence level for neutral Higgs boson masses of 1.0 TeV and 1.5 TeV, respectively, where $\tan\beta$ is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Higgs boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Higgs boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Higgs boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Higgs boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The observed 95% CL upper limits with one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
Several extensions of the Standard Model predict the production of dark matter particles at the LHC. An uncharted signature of dark matter particles produced in association with $VV=W^\pm W^\mp$ or $ZZ$ pairs from a decay of a dark Higgs boson $s$ is searched for using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collisions recorded by the ATLAS detector at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The $s\to V(q\bar q)V(q\bar q)$ decays are reconstructed with a novel technique aimed at resolving the dense topology from boosted $VV$ pairs using jets in the calorimeter and tracking information. Dark Higgs scenarios with $m_s > 160$ GeV are excluded.
Data overlaid on SM background post-fit yields stacked in each SR and CR category and E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> bin with the maximum-likelihood estimators set to the conditional values of the CR-only fit, and propagated to SR and CRs. Pre-fit uncertainties cover differences between the data and pre-fit background prediction.
Dominant sources of uncertainty for three dark Higgs scenarios after the fit to Asimov data generated from the expected values of the maximum-likelihood estimators including predicted signals with m<sub>Z'</sub> = 1 TeV and m<sub>s</sub> of (a) 160 GeV, (b) 235 GeV, and (c) 310 GeV. The uncertainty in the fitted signal yield relative to the theory prediction is presented. Total is the quadrature sum of statistical and total systematic uncertainties, which consider correlations.
The ratios (μ) of the 95% C.L. upper limits on the combined s→ W<sup>±</sup>W<sup>∓</sup> and s→ ZZ cross section to simplified model expectations for the m<sub>Z'</sub>=0.5 TeV scenario, for various m<sub>s</sub> hypotheses. The observed limits (solid line) are consistent with the expectation under the SM-only hypothesis (dashed line) within uncertainties (filled band), except for a small excess for m<sub>s</sub>=160 GeV, discussed in the text.
The ratios (μ) of the 95% C.L. upper limits on the combined s→ W<sup>±</sup>W<sup>∓</sup> and s→ ZZ cross section to simplified model expectations for the m<sub>Z'</sub>=1 TeV scenario, for various m<sub>s</sub> hypotheses. The observed limits (solid line) are consistent with the expectation under the SM-only hypothesis (dashed line) within uncertainties (filled band), except for a small excess for m<sub>s</sub>=160 GeV, discussed in the text.
The ratios (μ) of the 95% C.L. upper limits on the combined s→ W<sup>±</sup>W<sup>∓</sup> and s→ ZZ cross section to simplified model expectations for the m<sub>Z'</sub>=1.7 TeV scenario, for various m<sub>s</sub> hypotheses. The observed limits (solid line) are consistent with the expectation under the SM-only hypothesis (dashed line) within uncertainties (filled band), except for a small excess for m<sub>s</sub>=160 GeV, discussed in the text.
Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m<sub>Z'</sub>=0.5 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m<sub>Z'</sub>=0.5 TeV, shown in dashed blue.
Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m<sub>Z'</sub>=1 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m<sub>Z'</sub>=1 TeV, shown in dashed blue.
Observed upper limits at 95% C.L. on σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) for m<sub>Z'</sub>=1.7 TeV signal points. The expected limits, varied up and down by one and two standard deviations, are shown as green and yellow bands, respectively. The observed and expected limits are compared to the theoretical LO cross section for the σ(pp → s χχ) × B(s→ VV) process for m<sub>Z'</sub>=1.7 TeV, shown in dashed blue.
SM background post-fit yields stacked in each SR and CR category and E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> bin and data overlaid with the maximum likelihood estimators set to the conditional values of the combined signal and control region fit. The hatched uncertainty band shown includes simulation statistics uncertainties, experimental systematic uncertainties, and V+jets theory modelling systematic uncertainties. Pre-fit uncertainties cover differences between the data and pre-fit background prediction.
Cumulative efficiencies for the merged category for signal samples with m<sub>s</sub>=160 GeV (a), m<sub>s</sub>=235 GeV (b) and m<sub>s</sub>=310 GeV (c), each with m<sub>Z'</sub>=1 TeV. The dark Higgs candidate selection includes stringent jet substructure requirements and typically at most one candidate is present in signal events. Here, Δ φ<sub>jets<sub>1,2,3</sub> E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup></sub> is the smallest azimuthal angle between the E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> and any of the three highest-p<sub>T</sub> (leading) small-R jets.
Cumulative efficiencies for the intermediate category for signal samples with m<sub>s</sub>=160 GeV (a), m<sub>s</sub>=235 GeV (b) and m<sub>s</sub>=310 GeV (c), each with m<sub>Z'</sub>=1 TeV. The TAR+Comb algorithm reconstructs the dark Higgs candidate from a TAR jet with m<sup>TAR</sup>>60 GeV that is supplemented by up to two additional small-R jets within ΔR<sub>cone</sub>=2.5 of the TAR jet. Here, Δ φ<sub>jets<sub>1,2,3</sub> E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup></sub> is the smallest azimuthal angle between the E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> and any of the three highest-p<sub>T</sub> (leading) small-R jets. For details see text.
The product of acceptance and efficiency (A × ϵ), defined as the number of signal events satisfying the full set of selection criteria in the merged or intermediate signal regions, divided by the total number of generated signal events, for the s(W<sup>±</sup>W<sup>∓</sup>) dark Higgs signal points with dark Higgs boson mass m<sub>s</sub> and Z' boson mass m<sub>Z'</sub>.
The product of acceptance and efficiency (A × ϵ), defined as the number of signal events satisfying the full set of selection criteria in the merged or intermediate signal regions, divided by the total number of generated signal events, for the s(ZZ) dark Higgs signal points with dark Higgs boson mass m<sub>s</sub> and Z' boson mass m<sub>Z'</sub>.
This paper describes a search for beyond the Standard Model decays of the Higgs boson into a pair of new spin-0 particles subsequently decaying into $b$-quark pairs, $H \rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b})$, using proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider at center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV. This search focuses on the regime where the decay products are collimated and in the range $15 \leq m_a \leq 30$ GeV and is complementary to a previous search in the same final state targeting the regime where the decay products are well separated and in the range $20 \leq m_a \leq 60$ GeV. A novel strategy for the identification of the $a \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ decays is deployed to enhance the efficiency for topologies with small separation angles. The search is performed with 36 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity collected in 2015 and 2016 and sets upper limits on the production cross-section of $H \rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b})$, where the Higgs boson is produced in association with a $Z$ boson.
Summary of the 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ZH} BR(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$. Both observed and expected limits are listed. In the case of the expected limits, one- and two-standard-deviation uncertainty bands are also listed.
Summary of the 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ZH} BR(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$. Both observed and expected limits are listed. In the case of the expected limits, one- and two-standard-deviation uncertainty bands are also listed.
Summary of the observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{ZH} BR(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ for the resolved analysis.
Summary of the 95% C.L. upper limits on $\sigma_{ZH} BR(H\rightarrow aa \rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ for the dilepton channel in the resolved analysis. The observed limits are shown, together with the expected limits (dotted black lines). In the case of the expected limits, one- and two-standard-deviation uncertainty bands are also displayed. The data was published in JHEP 10 (2018) 031.
Efficiency and acceptance for simulated $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ samples in two signal regions (SR) of the analysis, one with two $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the High Purity Category (HPC), and the other with one $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidate in the High Purity Category (HPC) and one in the Low Purity Category (LPC).
Efficiency and acceptance for simulated $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ samples in two signal regions (SR) of the analysis, one with two $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the High Purity Category (HPC), and the other with one $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidate in the High Purity Category (HPC) and one in the Low Purity Category (LPC).
Event yields for a simulated $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ sample with $m_a = 17.5\,\text{GeV}$. The signal sample is produced with cross section equals to the standard model $pp\to ZH$, i.e. $0.88\,\text{pb}$. Cut 0 corresponds to the initial number of events. Cut 1 requires the single lepton trigger. Cut 2 requires 2 identified leptons. Cut 3 requires the Z-boson mass window. Cut 4 requires 2 reconstructed $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates. Cut 5a requires 2 identified $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region. Cut 6a requires the 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region to be inside the Higgs mass window. Cut 5b requires 2 identified $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region. Cut 6b requires the 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region to be inside the Higgs mass window.
Event yields for a simulated $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ sample with $m_a = 17.5\,\text{GeV}$. The signal sample is produced with cross section equals to the standard model $pp\to ZH$, i.e. $0.88\,\text{pb}$. Cut 0 corresponds to the initial number of events. Cut 1 requires the single lepton trigger. Cut 2 requires 2 identified leptons. Cut 3 requires the Z-boson mass window. Cut 4 requires 2 reconstructed $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates. Cut 5a requires 2 identified $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region. Cut 6a requires the 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region to be inside the Higgs mass window. Cut 5b requires 2 identified $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region. Cut 6b requires the 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region to be inside the Higgs mass window.
Background yield table for Z+jets, $t\bar{t}$, and rare sources. Observed data yield. Signal $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ yield with $m_a = 20\,\text{GeV}$. The signal sample is produced with cross section equals to the standard model $pp\to ZH$, i.e. $0.88\,\text{pb}$, with a branching ratio set to 1 for the $H \rightarrow aa$ decay, whereas the ATLAS figure attached to this entry instead uses the upper-limit branching ratio (smaller than 1). The table includes the yields in two signal regions with leptons consistent with an on-shell Z-boson decay, one with 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region and one with 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region. The table also includes the yields in four control regions, one with leptons consistent with an on-shell Z-boson decay and 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the Low Purity Category (LPC), and three others where the leptons are not consistent an on-shell Z-boson decay.
Background yield table for Z+jets, $t\bar{t}$, and rare sources. Observed data yield. Signal $ZH(\rightarrow aa\rightarrow (b\bar{b})(b\bar{b}))$ yield with $m_a = 20\,\text{GeV}$. The signal sample is produced with cross section equals to the standard model $pp\to ZH$, i.e. $0.88\,\text{pb}$. The table includes the yields in two signal regions with leptons consistent with an on-shell Z-boson decay, one with 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 2HPC region and one with 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the 1HPC1LPC region. The table also includes the yields in four control regions, one with leptons consistent with an on-shell Z-boson decay and 2 $a\to b\bar{b}$ candidates in the Low Purity Category (LPC), and three others where the leptons are not consistent an on-shell Z-boson decay.
A search for direct pair production of scalar partners of the top quark (top squarks or scalar third-generation up-type leptoquarks) in the all-hadronic $t\bar{t}$ plus missing transverse momentum final state is presented. The analysis of 139 fb$^{-1}$ of ${\sqrt{s}=13}$ TeV proton-proton collision data collected using the ATLAS detector at the LHC yields no significant excess over the Standard Model background expectation. To interpret the results, a supersymmetric model is used where the top squark decays via $\tilde{t} \to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi}^0_1$, with $t^{(*)}$ denoting an on-shell (off-shell) top quark and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ the lightest neutralino. Three specific event selections are optimised for the following scenarios. In the scenario where $m_{\tilde{t}}> m_t+m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$, top squark masses are excluded in the range 400-1250 GeV for $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses below $200$ GeV at 95 % confidence level. In the situation where $m_{\tilde{t}}\sim m_t+m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$, top squark masses in the range 300-630 GeV are excluded, while in the case where $m_{\tilde{t}}< m_W+m_b+m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ (with $m_{\tilde{t}}-m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}\ge 5$ GeV), considered for the first time in an ATLAS all-hadronic search, top squark masses in the range 300-660 GeV are excluded. Limits are also set for scalar third-generation up-type leptoquarks, excluding leptoquarks with masses below $1240$ GeV when considering only leptoquark decays into a top quark and a neutrino.
<b>- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - -</b> <br><br> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=stop_obs">Stop exclusion contour (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_obs_down">Stop exclusion contour (Obs. Down)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_obs_up">Stop exclusion contour (Obs. Up)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_exp">Stop exclusion contour (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_exp_down">Stop exclusion contour (Exp. Down)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_exp_up">Stop exclusion contour (Exp. Up)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_obs">LQ3u exclusion contour (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_obs_down">LQ3u exclusion contour (Obs. Down)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_obs_up">LQ3u exclusion contour (Obs. Up)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_exp">LQ3u exclusion contour (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_exp_down">LQ3u exclusion contour (Exp. Down)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_exp_up">LQ3u exclusion contour (Exp. Up)</a> </ul> <b>Upper limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=stop_xSecUpperLimit_obs">stop_xSecUpperLimit_obs</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_xSecUpperLimit_exp">stop_xSecUpperLimit_exp</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_xSecUpperLimit_obs">LQ3u_xSecUpperLimit_obs</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_xSecUpperLimit_exp">LQ3u_xSecUpperLimit_exp</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=SRATW_metsigST">SRATW_metsigST</a> <li><a href="?table=SRBTT_m_1fatjet_kt12">SRBTT_m_1fatjet_kt12</a> <li><a href="?table=SRC_RISR">SRC_RISR</a> <li><a href="?table=SRD0_htSig">SRD0_htSig</a> <li><a href="?table=SRD1_htSig">SRD1_htSig</a> <li><a href="?table=SRD2_htSig">SRD2_htSig</a> </ul> <b>Cut flows:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRATT">cutflow_SRATT</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRATW">cutflow_SRATW</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRAT0">cutflow_SRAT0</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRB">cutflow_SRB</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRC">cutflow_SRC</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRD0">cutflow_SRD0</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRD1">cutflow_SRD1</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRD2">cutflow_SRD2</a> </ul> <b>Acceptance and efficiencies:</b> As explained in <a href="https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/SupersymmetryPublicResults#summary_of_auxiliary_material">the twiki</a>. <ul> <li> <b>SRATT:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRATT">Acc_SRATT</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRATT">Eff_SRATT</a> <li> <b>SRATW:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRATW">Acc_SRATW</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRATW">Eff_SRATW</a> <li> <b>SRAT0:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRAT0">Acc_SRAT0</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRAT0">Eff_SRAT0</a> <li> <b>SRBTT:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRBTT">Acc_SRBTT</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRBTT">Eff_SRBTT</a> <li> <b>SRBTW:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRBTW">Acc_SRBTW</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRBTW">Eff_SRBTW</a> <li> <b>SRBT0:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRBT0">Acc_SRBT0</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRBT0">Eff_SRBT0</a> <li> <b>SRC1:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC1">Acc_SRC1</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC1">Eff_SRC1</a> <li> <b>SRC2:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC2">Acc_SRC2</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC2">Eff_SRC2</a> <li> <b>SRC3:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC3">Acc_SRC3</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC3">Eff_SRC3</a> <li> <b>SRC4:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC4">Acc_SRC4</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC4">Eff_SRC4</a> <li> <b>SRC5:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC5">Acc_SRC5</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC5">Eff_SRC5</a> <li> <b>SRD0:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRD0">Acc_SRD0</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRD0">Eff_SRD0</a> <li> <b>SRD1:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRD1">Acc_SRD1</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRD1">Eff_SRD1</a> <li> <b>SRD2:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRD2">Acc_SRD2</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRD2">Eff_SRD2</a> </ul> <b>Truth Code snippets</b> and <b>SLHA</a> files are available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
<b>- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - -</b> <br><br> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=stop_obs">Stop exclusion contour (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_obs_down">Stop exclusion contour (Obs. Down)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_obs_up">Stop exclusion contour (Obs. Up)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_exp">Stop exclusion contour (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_exp_down">Stop exclusion contour (Exp. Down)</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_exp_up">Stop exclusion contour (Exp. Up)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_obs">LQ3u exclusion contour (Obs.)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_obs_down">LQ3u exclusion contour (Obs. Down)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_obs_up">LQ3u exclusion contour (Obs. Up)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_exp">LQ3u exclusion contour (Exp.)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_exp_down">LQ3u exclusion contour (Exp. Down)</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_exp_up">LQ3u exclusion contour (Exp. Up)</a> </ul> <b>Upper limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=stop_xSecUpperLimit_obs">stop_xSecUpperLimit_obs</a> <li><a href="?table=stop_xSecUpperLimit_exp">stop_xSecUpperLimit_exp</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_xSecUpperLimit_obs">LQ3u_xSecUpperLimit_obs</a> <li><a href="?table=LQ3u_xSecUpperLimit_exp">LQ3u_xSecUpperLimit_exp</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=SRATW_metsigST">SRATW_metsigST</a> <li><a href="?table=SRBTT_m_1fatjet_kt12">SRBTT_m_1fatjet_kt12</a> <li><a href="?table=SRC_RISR">SRC_RISR</a> <li><a href="?table=SRD0_htSig">SRD0_htSig</a> <li><a href="?table=SRD1_htSig">SRD1_htSig</a> <li><a href="?table=SRD2_htSig">SRD2_htSig</a> </ul> <b>Cut flows:</b> <ul> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRATT">cutflow_SRATT</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRATW">cutflow_SRATW</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRAT0">cutflow_SRAT0</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRB">cutflow_SRB</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRC">cutflow_SRC</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRD0">cutflow_SRD0</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRD1">cutflow_SRD1</a> <li><a href="?table=cutflow_SRD2">cutflow_SRD2</a> </ul> <b>Acceptance and efficiencies:</b> As explained in <a href="https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/AtlasPublic/SupersymmetryPublicResults#summary_of_auxiliary_material">the twiki</a>. <ul> <li> <b>SRATT:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRATT">Acc_SRATT</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRATT">Eff_SRATT</a> <li> <b>SRATW:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRATW">Acc_SRATW</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRATW">Eff_SRATW</a> <li> <b>SRAT0:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRAT0">Acc_SRAT0</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRAT0">Eff_SRAT0</a> <li> <b>SRBTT:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRBTT">Acc_SRBTT</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRBTT">Eff_SRBTT</a> <li> <b>SRBTW:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRBTW">Acc_SRBTW</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRBTW">Eff_SRBTW</a> <li> <b>SRBT0:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRBT0">Acc_SRBT0</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRBT0">Eff_SRBT0</a> <li> <b>SRC1:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC1">Acc_SRC1</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC1">Eff_SRC1</a> <li> <b>SRC2:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC2">Acc_SRC2</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC2">Eff_SRC2</a> <li> <b>SRC3:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC3">Acc_SRC3</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC3">Eff_SRC3</a> <li> <b>SRC4:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC4">Acc_SRC4</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC4">Eff_SRC4</a> <li> <b>SRC5:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRC5">Acc_SRC5</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRC5">Eff_SRC5</a> <li> <b>SRD0:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRD0">Acc_SRD0</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRD0">Eff_SRD0</a> <li> <b>SRD1:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRD1">Acc_SRD1</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRD1">Eff_SRD1</a> <li> <b>SRD2:</b> <a href="?table=Acc_SRD2">Acc_SRD2</a> <a href="?table=Eff_SRD2">Eff_SRD2</a> </ul> <b>Truth Code snippets</b> and <b>SLHA</a> files are available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contour are excluded.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contour are excluded.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.
Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.
Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.
Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.
Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.
The distributions of $S$ in SRA-TW. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $S$ in SRA-TW. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $\it{m}^{\mathrm{R=1.2}}_{1}$ in SRB-TT. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $\it{m}^{\mathrm{R=1.2}}_{1}$ in SRB-TT. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of R$_{ISR}$ in SRC signal regions before R$_{ISR}$ cuts are applied. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of R$_{ISR}$ in SRC signal regions before R$_{ISR}$ cuts are applied. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD0. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD0. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD1. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD1. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD2. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD2. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TT. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TT. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TW. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TW. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-T0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-T0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (700,400)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in signal regions SRB-TT, SRB-TW and SRB-T0. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 60000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (700,400)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in signal regions SRB-TT, SRB-TW and SRB-T0. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 60000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (500,327)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in regions SRC-1, SRC-2, SRC-3, SRC-4 and SRC-5. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 150000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.384 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (500,327)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in regions SRC-1, SRC-2, SRC-3, SRC-4 and SRC-5. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 150000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.384 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD1. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD1. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD2. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD2. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Signal acceptance in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
In this paper, a new technique for reconstructing and identifying hadronically decaying $\tau^+\tau^-$ pairs with a large Lorentz boost, referred to as the di-$\tau$ tagger, is developed and used for the first time in the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. A benchmark di-$\tau$ tagging selection is employed in the search for resonant Higgs boson pair production, where one Higgs boson decays into a boosted $b\bar{b}$ pair and the other into a boosted $\tau^+\tau^-$ pair, with two hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons in the final state. Using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton$-$proton collision data recorded at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, the efficiency of the di-$\tau$ tagger is determined and the background with quark- or gluon-initiated jets misidentified as di-$\tau$ objects is estimated. The search for a heavy, narrow, scalar resonance produced via gluon$-$gluon fusion and decaying into two Higgs bosons is carried out in the mass range 1$-$3 TeV using the same dataset. No deviations from the Standard Model predictions are observed, and 95% confidence-level exclusion limits are set on this model.
Signal acceptance times selection efficiency as a function of the resonance mass, at various stages of the event selection. From top to bottom: an event pre-selection (trigger, object definitions and $E_{T}^{miss}>10$ GeV) is performed first; the requirements on the di-$\tau$ object and large-$R$ jet detailed in the text are then applied; finally, the $HH$ SR definition must be satisfied.
Distribution of $m^{vis}_{HH}$ after applying all the event selection that define the $HH$ SR, except the requirement on $m^{vis}_{HH}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. The $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ signal is overlaid for two resonance mass hypotheses with a cross-section set to the expected limit, while all backgrounds are pre-fit. The first and the last bins contains the under-flow and over-flow bin entries, respectively. The hatched bands represent combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Event yields of the various estimated backgrounds and data, computed in the signal region of the search for $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are quoted. The background yields and uncertainties are pre-fit and are found to be similar to those post-fit.
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy, narrow-width, scalar resonance decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons ($X\rightarrow HH$). The final state used in the search consists of a boosted $b\bar{b}$ pair and a boosted hadronically decaying $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ pair, and the SM braching ratio of the Higgs boson are assumed. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit are indicated by the error bands. Two different requirements are applied on the visible mass of the two boosted Higgs boson candidates for the resonance mass hypotheses of 1.6 TeV and 2.5 TeV, leading to discontinuities in the limits (at 1.6 TeV, the difference between imposing no requirement and $m^{vis}_{HH}>900$ GeV is less than 1% though).
A search for new phenomena in final states with hadronically decaying tau leptons, $b$-jets, and missing transverse momentum is presented. The analyzed dataset comprises $pp$~collision data at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt s = 13$ TeV with an integrated luminosity of 139/fb, delivered by the Large Hadron Collider and recorded with the ATLAS detector from 2015 to 2018. The observed data are compatible with the expected Standard Model background. The results are interpreted in simplified models for two different scenarios. The first model is based on supersymmetry and considers pair production of top squarks, each of which decays into a $b$-quark, a neutrino and a tau slepton. Each tau slepton in turn decays into a tau lepton and a nearly massless gravitino. Within this model, top-squark masses up to 1.4 TeV can be excluded at the 95% confidence level over a wide range of tau-slepton masses. The second model considers pair production of leptoquarks with decays into third-generation leptons and quarks. Depending on the branching fraction into charged leptons, leptoquarks with masses up to around 1.25 TeV can be excluded at the 95% confidence level for the case of scalar leptoquarks and up to 1.8 TeV (1.5 TeV) for vector leptoquarks in a Yang--Mills (minimal-coupling) scenario. In addition, model-independent upper limits are set on the cross section of processes beyond the Standard Model.
Distributions of $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$ in the single-tau $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$-binned SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.
Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for the minimal-coupling scenario. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.
Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for vector leptoquarks with additional gauge couplings. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.
Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for vector leptoquarks with additional gauge couplings. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.
Exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the stop-stau signal model as a function of the masses of the top squark $m(\tilde{t}_{1})$ and of the tau slepton $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1})$. Expected and observed limits are shown for the present search in comparison to observed limits from previous ATLAS analyses based on data from Run-1 of the LHC at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV [Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016)] and on a partial dataset from Run 2 at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV [Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 032008]. The green band indicates the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments.
Exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the stop-stau signal model as a function of the masses of the top squark $m(\tilde{t}_{1})$ and of the tau slepton $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1})$. Expected and observed limits are shown for the present search in comparison to observed limits from previous ATLAS analyses based on data from Run-1 of the LHC at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV [Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016)] and on a partial dataset from Run 2 at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV [Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 032008]. The green band indicates the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments.
Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ with charge $+2/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.
Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ with charge $-1/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.
Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ with charge $-1/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.
Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model with up-type leptoquarks.
Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model with down-type leptoquarks.
Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model with minimal coupling (MC).
Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.
Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.
Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.
Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.
Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.
Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.
Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.
Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.
Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.
Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.
Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.
Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.
Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.
Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.
Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.
Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.
Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.
Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.
Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.
Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.
This paper presents a statistical combination of searches targeting final states with two top quarks and invisible particles, characterised by the presence of zero, one or two leptons, at least one jet originating from a $b$-quark and missing transverse momentum. The analyses are searches for phenomena beyond the Standard Model consistent with the direct production of dark matter in $pp$ collisions at the LHC, using 139 fb$^{-\text{1}}$ of data collected with the ATLAS detector at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The results are interpreted in terms of simplified dark matter models with a spin-0 scalar or pseudoscalar mediator particle. In addition, the results are interpreted in terms of upper limits on the Higgs boson invisible branching ratio, where the Higgs boson is produced according to the Standard Model in association with a pair of top quarks. For scalar (pseudoscalar) dark matter models, with all couplings set to unity, the statistical combination extends the mass range excluded by the best of the individual channels by 50 (25) GeV, excluding mediator masses up to 370 GeV. In addition, the statistical combination improves the expected coupling exclusion reach by 14% (24%), assuming a scalar (pseudoscalar) mediator mass of 10 GeV. An upper limit on the Higgs boson invisible branching ratio of 0.38 (0.30$^{+\text{0.13}}_{-\text{0.09}}$) is observed (expected) at 95% confidence level.
A search for the electroweak production of charginos and sleptons decaying into final states with two electrons or muons is presented. The analysis is based on 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions recorded by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV. Three $R$-parity-conserving scenarios where the lightest neutralino is the lightest supersymmetric particle are considered: the production of chargino pairs with decays via either $W$ bosons or sleptons, and the direct production of slepton pairs. The analysis is optimised for the first of these scenarios, but the results are also interpreted in the others. No significant deviations from the Standard Model expectations are observed and limits at 95 % confidence level are set on the masses of relevant supersymmetric particles in each of the scenarios. For a massless lightest neutralino, masses up to 420 GeV are excluded for the production of the lightest-chargino pairs assuming $W$-boson-mediated decays and up to 1 TeV for slepton-mediated decays, whereas for slepton-pair production masses up to 700 GeV are excluded assuming three generations of mass-degenerate sleptons.
- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - - <br/><br/> <b>Background Fit results:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit1">CRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit2">VRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit5">inclusive DF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit6">inclusive DF-1J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit3">inclusive SF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit4">inclusive SF-1J SRs</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions in VRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics1">$m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics2">$m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics3">$E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics4">$E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics5">$E_T^{miss}$ sig in VR-VZ</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics6">$E_T^{miss}$ sig in VR-top-WW</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions in SRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=SRkinematics1">$m_{T2}$ in SR-SF-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=SRkinematics2">$m_{T2}$ in SR-SF-1J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=SRkinematics3">$m_{T2}$ in SR-DF-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=SRkinematics4">$m_{T2}$ in SR-DF-1J</a> </ul> <b>Systematic uncertaities:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Systematic uncertainties">dominant systematic uncertainties in the inclusive SRs</a> </ul> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)1">expected exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)1">observed exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)2">expected exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)2">observed exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)3">expected exclusion contour direct slepton-pair production grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)3">observed exclusion contour direct slepton-pair production grid</a> </ul> <br/><br/><b>AUXILIARY MATERIAL</b><br/> <b>Background Fit in binned SRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit7">binned DF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit8">binned DF-1J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit9">binned SF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit10">binned SF-1J SRs</a> </ul> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)4">expected exclusion contour left-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)4">observed exclusion contour left-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)5">expected exclusion contour right-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)5">observed exclusion contour right-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)6">expected exclusion contour selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)6">observed exclusion contour selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)7">expected exclusion contour left-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)7">observed exclusion contour left-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)8">expected exclusion contour right-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)8">observed exclusion contour right-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)9">expected exclusion contour smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)9">observed exclusion contour smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)10">expected exclusion contour left-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)10">observed exclusion contour left-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)11">expected exclusion contour right-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)11">observed exclusion contour right-handed smuon-pair production</a> </ul> <b>Cross section upper limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=xsecupperlimits1">upper limits on signal cross section for direct chargino-pair production via W decay</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=xsecupperlimits2">upper limits on signal cross section for direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=xsecupperlimits3">upper limits on signal cross section for direct slepton-pair production</a> </ul> <b>Acceptances and Efficiencies for direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid </b> <ul> <li> <b>Acceptance</b> <br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <li> <b>Efficiency</b> <br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> </ul> <b>Cutflow:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Cutflow1">Cutflow for direct chargino-pair production via W decay $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(300,50) GeV$</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Cutflow1">Cutflow for direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{l},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(600,300,1) GeV$</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Cutflow1">Cutflow for direct slepton-pair production $m(\tilde{l},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(400,200) GeV$</a> </ul> <b>Truth Code snippets</b> are available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - - <br/><br/> <b>Background Fit results:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit1">CRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit2">VRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit5">inclusive DF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit6">inclusive DF-1J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit3">inclusive SF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit4">inclusive SF-1J SRs</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions in VRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics1">$m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics2">$m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics3">$E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics4">$E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics5">$E_T^{miss}$ sig in VR-VZ</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=VRkinematics6">$E_T^{miss}$ sig in VR-top-WW</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions in SRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=SRkinematics1">$m_{T2}$ in SR-SF-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=SRkinematics2">$m_{T2}$ in SR-SF-1J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=SRkinematics3">$m_{T2}$ in SR-DF-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=SRkinematics4">$m_{T2}$ in SR-DF-1J</a> </ul> <b>Systematic uncertaities:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Systematic uncertainties">dominant systematic uncertainties in the inclusive SRs</a> </ul> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)1">expected exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)1">observed exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)2">expected exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)2">observed exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)3">expected exclusion contour direct slepton-pair production grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)3">observed exclusion contour direct slepton-pair production grid</a> </ul> <br/><br/><b>AUXILIARY MATERIAL</b><br/> <b>Background Fit in binned SRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit7">binned DF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit8">binned DF-1J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit9">binned SF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Backgroundfit10">binned SF-1J SRs</a> </ul> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)4">expected exclusion contour left-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)4">observed exclusion contour left-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)5">expected exclusion contour right-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)5">observed exclusion contour right-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)6">expected exclusion contour selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)6">observed exclusion contour selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)7">expected exclusion contour left-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)7">observed exclusion contour left-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)8">expected exclusion contour right-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)8">observed exclusion contour right-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)9">expected exclusion contour smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)9">observed exclusion contour smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)10">expected exclusion contour left-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)10">observed exclusion contour left-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(obs)11">expected exclusion contour right-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Exclusioncontour(exp)11">observed exclusion contour right-handed smuon-pair production</a> </ul> <b>Cross section upper limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=xsecupperlimits1">upper limits on signal cross section for direct chargino-pair production via W decay</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=xsecupperlimits2">upper limits on signal cross section for direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=xsecupperlimits3">upper limits on signal cross section for direct slepton-pair production</a> </ul> <b>Acceptances and Efficiencies for direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid </b> <ul> <li> <b>Acceptance</b> <br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-0J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-DF-1J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-0J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=AcceptanceSR-SF-1J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <li> <b>Efficiency</b> <br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-0J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-DF-1J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-0J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[100,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[160,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[100,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[120,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[100,105)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[105,110)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[110,120)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[120,140)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[140,160)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[160,180)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[180,220)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[220,260)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=1&table=EfficiencySR-SF-1J-[260,inf)forC1C1WWgrid">SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> </ul> <b>Cutflow:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Cutflow1">Cutflow for direct chargino-pair production via W decay $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(300,50) GeV$</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Cutflow1">Cutflow for direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{l},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(600,300,1) GeV$</a> <li><a href="89413?version=1&table=Cutflow1">Cutflow for direct slepton-pair production $m(\tilde{l},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(400,200) GeV$</a> </ul> <b>SimpleAnalysis framework implementation</b> of the search SRs is available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
- - - - - - - - Overview of HEPData Record - - - - - - - - <br/><br/> <b>Background Fit results:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 1">CRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 2">VRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 5">inclusive DF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 6">inclusive DF-1J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 3">inclusive SF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 4">inclusive SF-1J SRs</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions in VRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=VR kinematics 1">$m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=VR kinematics 2">$m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=VR kinematics 3">$E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=VR kinematics 4">$E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=VR kinematics 5">$E_T^{miss}$ sig in VR-VZ</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=VR kinematics 6">$E_T^{miss}$ sig in VR-top-WW</a> </ul> <b>Kinematic distributions in SRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=SR kinematics 1">$m_{T2}$ in SR-SF-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=SR kinematics 2">$m_{T2}$ in SR-SF-1J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=SR kinematics 3">$m_{T2}$ in SR-DF-0J</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=SR kinematics 4">$m_{T2}$ in SR-DF-1J</a> </ul> <b>Systematic uncertaities:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Systematic uncertainties">dominant systematic uncertainties in the inclusive SRs</a> </ul> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 1">expected exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 1">observed exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 2">expected exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 2">observed exclusion contour direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 3">expected exclusion contour direct slepton-pair production grid</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 3">observed exclusion contour direct slepton-pair production grid</a> </ul> <br/><br/><b>AUXILIARY MATERIAL</b><br/> <b>Background Fit in binned SRs:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 7">binned DF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 8">binned DF-1J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 9">binned SF-0J SRs</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Background fit 10">binned SF-1J SRs</a> </ul> <b>Exclusion contours:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 4">expected exclusion contour left-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 4">observed exclusion contour left-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 5">expected exclusion contour right-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 5">observed exclusion contour right-handed slepton-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 6">expected exclusion contour selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 6">observed exclusion contour selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 7">expected exclusion contour left-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 7">observed exclusion contour left-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 8">expected exclusion contour right-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 8">observed exclusion contour right-handed selectron-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 9">expected exclusion contour smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 9">observed exclusion contour smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 10">expected exclusion contour left-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 10">observed exclusion contour left-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (exp) 11">expected exclusion contour right-handed smuon-pair production</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Exclusion contour (obs) 11">observed exclusion contour right-handed smuon-pair production</a> </ul> <b>Cross section upper limits:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=xsec upper limits 1">upper limits on signal cross section for direct chargino-pair production via W decay</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=xsec upper limits 2">upper limits on signal cross section for direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=xsec upper limits 3">upper limits on signal cross section for direct slepton-pair production</a> </ul> <b>Acceptances and Efficiencies for direct chargino-pair production via W decay grid </b> <ul> <li> <b>Acceptance</b> <br/> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Acceptance SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <li> <b>Efficiency</b> <br/> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-DF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-0J-[260,inf) </a><br/> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[160,inf) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[100,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[120,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[120,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[100,105) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[100,105) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[105,110) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[105,110) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[110,120) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[110,120) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[120,140) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[120,140) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[140,160) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[140,160) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[160,180) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[160,180) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[180,220) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[180,220) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[220,260) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[220,260) </a> <a href="89413?version=3&table=Efficiency SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) for C1C1WW grid">SR-SF-1J-[260,inf) </a><br/> </ul> <b>Cutflow:</b> <ul> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Cutflow 1">Cutflow for direct chargino-pair production via W decay $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(300,50) GeV$</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Cutflow 2">Cutflow for direct chargino-pair production via slepton decay $m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1,\tilde{l},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(600,300,1) GeV$</a> <li><a href="89413?version=3&table=Cutflow 3">Cutflow for direct slepton-pair production $m(\tilde{l},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)=(400,200) GeV$</a> </ul> <b>SimpleAnalysis framework implementation</b> of the search SRs is available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit for the CRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit for the CRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit for the CRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields in the VRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields in the VRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields in the VRs. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-low for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in VR-top-high for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ in VR-WW-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-VZ for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-VZ for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-VZ for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-top-WW for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-top-WW for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of $E_T^{miss}$ significance in VR-top-WW for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow.
Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the inclusive SRs requiring $m_{T2}$>100 GeV after performing the profile likelihood fit. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty. The percentages show the size of the uncertainty relative to the total expected background. "Top theoretical uncertainties" refers to $t\bar t$ theoretical uncertainties and the uncertainty associated to $Wt-t\bar t$ interference added quadratically.
Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the inclusive SRs requiring $m_{T2}$>100 GeV after performing the profile likelihood fit. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty. The percentages show the size of the uncertainty relative to the total expected background. "Top theoretical uncertainties" refers to $t\bar t$ theoretical uncertainties and the uncertainty associated to $Wt-t\bar t$ interference added quadratically.
Breakdown of the dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the inclusive SRs requiring $m_{T2}$>100 GeV after performing the profile likelihood fit. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty. The percentages show the size of the uncertainty relative to the total expected background. "Top theoretical uncertainties" refers to $t\bar t$ theoretical uncertainties and the uncertainty associated to $Wt-t\bar t$ interference added quadratically.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the DF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted post-fit background yields for the SF inclusive SRs. The model independent upper limits at 95% confidence level (CL) on the observed and expected number of beyond the SM events $S^{0.95}_{obs/exp}$ and the effective beyond the SM cross-section $\sigma^{0.95}_{obs}$ are also reported. The last row reports the $p_0$-value of the SM-only hypothesis. For SRs where the data yield is smaller than expected, the $p$-value is truncated at 0.50. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$+V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRSF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-0J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in SRDF-1J for data and the estimated SM backgrounds. The normalisation factors extracted from the corresponding CRs are used to rescale the $t\bar t$, single top, WW, WZ and ZZ backgrounds. The fake and non-prompt leptons background (FNP) is calculated using the data-driven matrix method. The uncertainty band includes all sources of systematic and statistical errors and the last bin includes the overflow. Distributions for three benchmark signal points are overlaid for comparison.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with $W$ boson mediated decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino mediated mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for selectron-pair production, with left and right handed selectron production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed selectron-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for smuon-pair production, with left and right handed smuon production combined. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed smuon-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned DF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=0$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed events and predicted background yields from the fit in the binned SF SRs with $n_{non-b-tagged jets}=1$. For backgrounds whose normalisation is extracted from the fit in the CRs, the yield expected from the simulation before the fit is also reported. The background denoted as "Other" in the Table includes the non-dominant background sources for this analysis, i.e. Z+jets, $t\bar t$ +V, Higgs and Drell-Yan events. A "–" symbol indicates that the background contribution is negligible.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for left-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Observed exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for right-handed slepton-pair production. All limits are computed at 95% CL.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with W -boson-mediated decays.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with W -boson-mediated decays.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with W -boson-mediated decays.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino-mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino-mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for chargino-pair production with slepton/sneutrino-mediated decays. The mass relation $m(\tilde{l}_L)=\frac{1}{2}[m(\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_1 + m(\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1)]$ is assumed.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for slepton-pair production.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for slepton-pair production.
Upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) for slepton-pair production.
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[100,105).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[105,110).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[110,120).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[120,140).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[140,160).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[160,180).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[180,220).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[220,260).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-SF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-0J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Acceptance for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Signal Efficiency for direct chargino-pair production with W-boson mediated decays in SR-DF-1J-[260,inf).
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via $W^{\pm}W^{\mp}$. The masses of the two charginos are 300 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 50 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via $W^{\pm}W^{\mp}$. The masses of the two charginos are 300 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 50 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via $W^{\pm}W^{\mp}$. The masses of the two charginos are 300 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 50 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via slepton-neutrino/sneutrino-lepton pair. The masses of the two charginos are 600 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 1 GeV. The slepton/sneutrino masses are 300 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via slepton-neutrino/sneutrino-lepton pair. The masses of the two charginos are 600 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 1 GeV. The slepton/sneutrino masses are 300 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_1^{\mp}$ decay via slepton-neutrino/sneutrino-lepton pair. The masses of the two charginos are 600 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 1 GeV. The slepton/sneutrino masses are 300 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde\ell\tilde\ell$ are produced. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered in this model. The masses of the two sleptons are 400 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 200 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde\ell\tilde\ell$ are produced. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered in this model. The masses of the two sleptons are 400 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 200 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow for supersymmetric model where $\tilde\ell\tilde\ell$ are produced. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered in this model. The masses of the two sleptons are 400 GeV, while the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ is 200 GeV. The numbers are normalised to the luminosity of 139~fb$^{-1}$.
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.