Showing 10 of 713 results
A search for new phenomena in final states containing an $e^+e^-$ or $\mu^+\mu^-$ pair, jets, and large missing transverse momentum is presented. This analysis makes use of proton--proton collision data with an integrated luminosity of $36.1 \; \mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, collected during 2015 and 2016 at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. The search targets the pair production of supersymmetric coloured particles (squarks or gluinos) and their decays into final states containing an $e^+e^-$ or $\mu^+\mu^-$ pair and the lightest neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) via one of two next-to-lightest neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_2^0$) decay mechanisms: $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, where the $Z$ boson decays leptonically leading to a peak in the dilepton invariant mass distribution around the $Z$ boson mass; and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \rightarrow \ell^+\ell^- \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with no intermediate $\ell^+\ell^-$ resonance, yielding a kinematic endpoint in the dilepton invariant mass spectrum. The data are found to be consistent with the Standard Model expectation. Results are interpreted using simplified models, and exclude gluinos and squarks with masses as large as 1.85 TeV and 1.3 TeV at 95% confidence level, respectively.
Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions, with the bin boundaries considered for the interpretation, in SR-low. All statistical and systematic uncertainties of the expected background are included in the hatched band. An example signal from the slepton model with m(gluino) = 1200 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 900 GeV is overlaid.
Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions, with the bin boundaries considered for the interpretation, in SR-med. All statistical and systematic uncertainties of the expected background are included in the hatched band. An example signal from the slepton model with m(gluino) = 1600 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 900 GeV, and from an on-$Z$ model with m(gluino) = 1640 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 1160 GeV, is overlaid.
Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions, with the bin boundaries considered for the interpretation, in SR-high. All statistical and systematic uncertainties of the expected background are included in the hatched band. An example signal from the slepton model with m(gluino) = 1800 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 500 GeV, and from an on-$Z$ model with m(gluino) = 1650 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 550 GeV, is overlaid.
Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions, with the bin boundaries considered for the interpretation, in SRC of the low-pT edge search. All statistical and systematic uncertainties of the expected background are included in the hatched band. An example signal from the $Z^{*}$ model with m(gluino) = 1000 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 900 GeV is overlaid.
Observed and expected dilepton mass distributions, with the bin boundaries considered for the interpretation, in SRC-MET of the low-pT edge search. All statistical and systematic uncertainties of the expected background are included in the hatched band. An example signal from the $Z^{*}$ model with m(gluino) = 1000 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 900 GeV is overlaid.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson and the lightest neutralino.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson and the lightest neutralino.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson and the lightest neutralino.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson and the lightest neutralino.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the gluino and next-to-lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the gluino and next-to-lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the squark and next-to-lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the squark and next-to-lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson the lightest neutralino.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from the on-Z signal regions on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and the lightest neutralino.
Acceptance and efficiency in the on-Z bin for SR-medium for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.
Acceptance and efficiency in the on-Z bin for SR-high for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.
Acceptance and efficiency over the full $m_{ll}$ range for SR-low for a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
Acceptance and efficiency over the full $m_{ll}$ range for SR-medium for a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
Acceptance and efficiency over the full $m_{ll}$ range for SR-high for a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
Acceptance and efficiency over the full $m_{ll}$ range for SRC for a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
Acceptance and efficiency over the full $m_{ll}$ range for SRC-MET for a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the on-Z $m_{ll}$ windows of SR-medium and SR-high, SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.
The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the on-Z $m_{ll}$ windows of SR-medium and SR-high, SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino.
The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the on-Z $m_{ll}$ windows of SR-medium and SR-high, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson the lightest neutralino.
The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the signal regions, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino.
The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the signal regions, in a SUSYscenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson.
The grey numbers show the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section at each model point, derived from the best expected combination of results in the low-p$_{T}$ signal regions, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson.
Cutflow table for three benchmark signal points from the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino, with m(gluino) = 1395 GeV and m(neutralino2) = 505 GeV, m(gluino) = 920 GeV and m(neutralino2) = 230 GeV and m(gluino) = 940 GeV and m(neutralino2) = 660 GeV, in the on-$Z$ $m_{ll}$ bins of SR-medium and SR-high for the electron and muon channels separately. The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow table for a signal point from the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino, with m(gluino) = 1000 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 800 GeV, m(gluino) = 1200 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 500 GeV and m(gluino) = 1400 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 100 GeV, in all m_{ll}$ bins of SR-low, SR-medium and SR-high for the electron and muon channels separately. The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.
Cutflow table for a signal point from the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson, with m(gluino) = 600 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 560 GeV and m(gluino) = 1000 GeV and m(neutralino1) = 960 GeV, in all $m_{ll}$ bins of SRC and SRC-MET for the electron and muon channels separately. The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.
Signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.
Signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson and a 1 GeV lightest neutralino, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.
Signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on-shell Z-boson the lightest neutralino, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.
Signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.
Low-$p_{T}$ signal region used to derive the exclusion limit in the compressed region for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay to an on- or off-shell $Z$ boson, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.
Signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.
Low-$p_{T}$ signal region used to derive the exclusion limit for the SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via sleptons into the lightest neutralino, corresponding to the SR determined to give the best expected limit for a given signal point.
A search for direct pair production of top squarks in final states with two tau leptons, $b$-jets, and missing transverse momentum is presented. The analysis is based on proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider in 2015 and 2016. Two exclusive channels with either two hadronically decaying tau leptons or one hadronically and one leptonically decaying tau lepton are considered. No significant deviation from the Standard Model predictions is observed in the data. The analysis results are interpreted in terms of model-independent limits and used to derive exclusion limits on the masses of the top squark $\tilde t_1$ and the tau slepton $\tilde \tau_1$ in a simplified model of supersymmetry with a nearly massless gravitino. In this model, masses up to $m(\tilde t_1) = 1.16$ TeV and $m(\tilde \tau_1) = 1.00$ TeV are excluded at 95% confidence level.
Distribution of m<sub>T2</sub> in the signal region of the lep-had channel before the respective selection requirements, indicated by the vertical line and arrow, are applied. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The total background from events with a fake tau lepton in the lep-had channel (fake τ<sub>had</sub> + e /μ) is obtained from the fake-factor method. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty in the SM background. The error bars on the black data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data yields. The dashed line shows the expected additional yields from a benchmark signal model. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> in the signal region of the lep-had channel before the respective selection requirements, indicated by the vertical line and arrow, are applied. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The total background from events with a fake tau lepton in the lep-had channel (fake τ<sub>had</sub> + e /μ) is obtained from the fake-factor method. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty in the SM background. The error bars on the black data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data yields. The dashed line shows the expected additional yields from a benchmark signal model. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of m<sub>T2</sub> in the signal region of the had-had channel before the respective selection requirements, indicated by the vertical line and arrow, are applied. Here, τ<sub>1</sub> (τ<sub>2</sub>) refers to the leading (subleading) τ<sub>had</sub>. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty in the SM background. The error bars on the black data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data yields. The dashed line shows the expected additional yields from a benchmark signal model. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.
Distributions of E<sub>T</sub><sup>miss</sup> in the signal region of the had-had channel before the respective selection requirements, indicated by the vertical line and arrow, are applied. Here, τ<sub>1</sub> (τ<sub>2</sub>) refers to the leading (subleading) τ<sub>had</sub>. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty in the SM background. The error bars on the black data points represent the statistical uncertainty in the data yields. The dashed line shows the expected additional yields from a benchmark signal model. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.
<b>Exclusion contour (obs)</b> Expected (solid blue line) and observed (solid red line) exclusion-limit contours at 95% confidence level in the plane of top-squark and tau-slepton mass for the simplified model, obtained from the statistical combination of the lep-had and had-had channels, using full experimental and theory systematic uncertainties except the theoretical uncertainty in the signal cross section. The yellow band shows one-standard-deviation variations around the expected limit contour. The dotted red lines indicate how the observed limit moves when varying the signal cross section up or down by the corresponding uncertainty in the theoretical value. For comparison, the plot also shows the observed exclusion contour from the ATLAS Run-1 analysis as the area shaded in gray and the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments as a green band.
<b>Exclusion contour (exp)</b> Expected (solid blue line) and observed (solid red line) exclusion-limit contours at 95% confidence level in the plane of top-squark and tau-slepton mass for the simplified model, obtained from the statistical combination of the lep-had and had-had channels, using full experimental and theory systematic uncertainties except the theoretical uncertainty in the signal cross section. The yellow band shows one-standard-deviation variations around the expected limit contour. The dotted red lines indicate how the observed limit moves when varying the signal cross section up or down by the corresponding uncertainty in the theoretical value. For comparison, the plot also shows the observed exclusion contour from the ATLAS Run-1 analysis as the area shaded in gray and the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments as a green band.
Expected numbers of events from the SM background processes from the background fit and observed event yield in data for the signal regions in the lep-had and had-had channel, given for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb<sup>-1</sup>. The expected yield for the signal model with m(t̃<sub>1</sub>)=1100 GeV and m(τ̃<sub>1</sub>)=590 GeV is shown for comparison. The uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties and are truncated at zero. The total background from events with a fake tau lepton in the lep-had channel (fake τ<sub>had</sub> + e /μ) is obtained from the fake-factor method.
Normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. The normalization factor for tt̄ events with fake tau leptons is only relevant for the had-had channel.
Left to right: observed 95% CL upper limits on the visible cross section (⟨ A ε σ ⟩<sub>obs</sub><sup>95</sup>) and on the number of signal events (S<sub>obs</sub><sup>95</sup> ). The third column (S<sub>exp</sub><sup>95</sup>) shows the expected 95% CL upper limit on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and ± 1σ excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the CL<sub>b</sub> value, i.e. the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis, and the discovery p-value (p(s = 0)) and the corresponding significance (Z).
Signal acceptance A in percent for the signal region of the lep-had channel. The signal acceptance A is determined from a generator-level implementation of the analysis. It includes the branching ratios for the decays of the tau leptons. The selection efficiency ε is calculated using reconstructed objects, i.e. including all detector effects, and defined such that the event yields in the signal regions are given by the product A · ε · N<sub>signal</sub>, where N<sub>signal</sub> = σ · 36.1 fb<sup>-1</sup> and σ is the theoretical prediction for the production cross section of top-squark pairs with the mass given on the horizontal axis.
Signal acceptance A in percent for the signal region of the had-had channel. The signal acceptance A is determined from a generator-level implementation of the analysis. It includes the branching ratios for the decays of the tau leptons. The selection efficiency ε is calculated using reconstructed objects, i.e. including all detector effects, and defined such that the event yields in the signal regions are given by the product A · ε · N<sub>signal</sub>, where N<sub>signal</sub> = σ · 36.1 fb<sup>-1</sup> and σ is the theoretical prediction for the production cross section of top-squark pairs with the mass given on the horizontal axis.
Reconstruction efficiency ε in percent for the signal region of the lep-had channel. The signal acceptance A is determined from a generator-level implementation of the analysis. It includes the branching ratios for the decays of the tau leptons. The selection efficiency ε is calculated using reconstructed objects, i.e. including all detector effects, and defined such that the event yields in the signal regions are given by the product A · ε · N<sub>signal</sub>, where N<sub>signal</sub> = σ · 36.1 fb<sup>-1</sup> and σ is the theoretical prediction for the production cross section of top-squark pairs with the mass given on the horizontal axis.
Reconstruction efficiency ε in percent for the signal region of the had-had channel. The signal acceptance A is determined from a generator-level implementation of the analysis. It includes the branching ratios for the decays of the tau leptons. The selection efficiency ε is calculated using reconstructed objects, i.e. including all detector effects, and defined such that the event yields in the signal regions are given by the product A · ε · N<sub>signal</sub>, where N<sub>signal</sub> = σ · 36.1 fb<sup>-1</sup> and σ is the theoretical prediction for the production cross section of top-squark pairs with the mass given on the horizontal axis.
Upper exclusion limits at 95% confidence level on the observed cross section σ<sub>obs</sub><sup>95</sup> for the simplified signal model as function of the top-squark mass m(t̃<sub>1</sub>) and tau-slepton mass m(τ̃<sub>1</sub>) in GeV.
Number of events passing each selection step of SR LH (lep-had channel) before (raw number) and after applying event-based weights (weighted) for signal point m(t̃<sub>1</sub>) = 1100 GeV, m(τ̃<sub>1</sub>) = 590 GeV. The preselection step here does not include the requirements on the tau p<sub>T</sub> and the number of bjets.
Number of events passing each selection step of SR HH (had-had channel) before (raw number) and after applying event-based weights (weighted) for signal point m(t̃<sub>1</sub>) = 1100 GeV, m(τ̃<sub>1</sub>) = 590 GeV. The preselection step here does not include the requirements on the tau p<sub>T</sub> and the number of bjets. Here, τ<sub>1</sub> (τ<sub>2</sub>) refers to the leading (subleading) τ<sub>had</sub>.
Measurements of differential cross-sections of top-quark pair production in fiducial phase-spaces are presented as a function of top-quark and $t\bar{t}$ system kinematic observables in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}$=13 TeV. The data set corresponds to an integrated luminosity of $3.2$ fb${}^{-1}$, recorded in 2015 with the ATLAS detector at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. Events with exactly one electron or muon and at least two jets in the final state are used for the measurement. Two separate selections are applied that each focus on different top-quark momentum regions, referred to as resolved and boosted topologies of the $t\bar{t}$ final state. The measured spectra are corrected for detector effects and are compared to several Monte Carlo simulations by means of calculated $\chi^2$ and $p$-values.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the top quark pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the top quark pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the top quark pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the top quark pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.
Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.
Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.
Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the hadronic top-quark top quark pT, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.
Covariance matrix for the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.
Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.
Covariance matrix for the relative cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the top quark, accounting for the statistic and systematic uncertainties in the boosted topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the mass of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the relative cross-section as function of the tt̄ system pT, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Covariance matrix of the absolute cross-section as function of the absolute value of the rapidity of the tt̄ system, accounting for the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the resolved topology.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the tt̄ system transverse momentum in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the tt̄ system rapidity in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the mass of the tt̄ system in the resolved regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the top quark transverse momentum in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the absolute differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
Table of systematic uncertainties for the relative differential cross-section at particle level for the absolute value of the top quark rapidity in the boosted regime. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text.
The results of a search for the direct pair production of top squarks, the supersymmetric partner of the top quark, in final states with one isolated electron or muon, several energetic jets, and missing transverse momentum are reported. The analysis also targets spin-0 mediator models, where the mediator decays into a pair of dark-matter particles and is produced in association with a pair of top quarks. The search uses data from proton-proton collisions delivered by the Large Hadron Collider in 2015 and 2016 at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV and recorded by the ATLAS detector, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36 fb$^{-1}$. A wide range of signal scenarios with different mass-splittings between the top squark, the lightest neutralino and possible intermediate supersymmetric particles are considered, including cases where the W bosons or the top quarks produced in the decay chain are off-shell. No significant excess over the Standard Model prediction is observed. The null results are used to set exclusion limits at 95% confidence level in several supersymmetry benchmark models. For pair-produced top-squarks decaying into top quarks, top-squark masses up to 940 GeV are excluded. Stringent exclusion limits are also derived for all other considered top-squark decay scenarios. For the spin-0 mediator models, upper limits are set on the visible cross-section.
$\textbf{Distribution 1 } -$ Kinematic distribution of $m_{\rm top}^{\rm reclustered}$ in tN_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 1 } -$ Kinematic distribution of $m_{\rm top}^{\rm reclustered}$ in tN_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 1 } -$ Kinematic distribution of $m_{\rm top}^{\rm reclustered}$ in tN_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 1 } -$ Kinematic distribution of $m_{\rm top}^{\rm reclustered}$ in tN_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 2 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bC2x_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 2 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bC2x_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 2 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bC2x_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 2 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bC2x_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 3 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in bC2x_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 3 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in bC2x_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 3 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in bC2x_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 3 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in bC2x_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 4 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in bCbv. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 4 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in bCbv. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 4 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in bCbv. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 4 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in bCbv. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 5 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in DM_low. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 5 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in DM_low. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 5 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in DM_low. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 5 } -$ Kinematic distribution of mT in DM_low. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 6 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in DM_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 6 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in DM_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 6 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in DM_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 6 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in DM_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 7 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_low region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 7 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_low region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 7 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_low region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 7 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_low region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 8 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_med region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 8 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_med region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 8 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_med region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 8 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_med region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 9 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_high region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 9 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_high region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 9 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_high region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 9 } -$ Distributions of BDT score for the tN_diag_high region. The SM background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration.
$\textbf{Distribution 10 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in tN_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 10 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in tN_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 10 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in tN_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 10 } -$ Kinematic distribution of ETmiss in tN_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 11 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bWN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 11 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bWN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 11 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bWN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 11 } -$ Kinematic distribution of amT2 in bWN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 12 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bffN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 12 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bffN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 12 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bffN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 12 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bffN. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 13 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 13 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 13 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 13 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_diag. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 14 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 14 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 14 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 14 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_med. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 15 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 15 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 15 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Distribution 15 } -$ Kinematic distribution of pT(l)/ETmiss in bCsoft_high. The full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement that is imposed on the variable being plotted. The predicted SM backgrounds are scaled with the normalisation factors obtained from the corresponding control regions. The last bin contains overflows.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 1 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Selected SR 1 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{Selected SR 1 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{Selected SR 1 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{Selected SR 1 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 2 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop pair production assuming either stop -> t N1, stop -> b W C1 or stop -> b f f' N1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%.
$\textbf{Selected SR 2 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{Selected SR 2 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{Selected SR 2 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{Selected SR 2 } -$ Selected signal regions for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) versus m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 3 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Selected SR 3 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Selected SR 3 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Selected SR 3 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Selected SR 3 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu < 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 4 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Selected SR 4 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Selected SR 4 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Selected SR 4 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Selected SR 4 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the wino NLSP model under the hypothesis of mq3L < mtR and mu > 0, where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, sbottom -> t C1, sbottom -> b N1, and sbottom -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratios for each signal point. N2 decays to N1 predominantly via either Z boson or Higgs boson depending on the sign of the μ parameter.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 5 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production assuming b C1 decay with a branching ratio of 100%. The chargino mass is assumed to be close to the stop mass, m(C1) = m(STOP) - 10 GeV.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 6 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 6 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 6 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 6 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 6 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 7 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 7 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 7 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 7 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 7 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 8 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 8 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 8 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 8 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 8 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 9 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 10 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 10 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 10 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 10 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 10 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly left-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 11 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 11 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 11 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 11 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 11 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for a mostly right-handed stop. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 12 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 12 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 12 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 12 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Selected SR 12 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model for large $\tan\beta$. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 13 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Selected SR 13 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Selected SR 13 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Selected SR 13 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Selected SR 13 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} < m_{t_{R}}$ hypothesis. Both stop/sbottom pair productions are considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (exp.) } -$ Expected 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.<br><b>Note:</b> As no observed exclusion is found for this model, the contour is empty.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.<br><b>Note:</b> As no observed exclusion is found for this model, the contour is empty.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.<br><b>Note:</b> As no observed exclusion is found for this model, the contour is empty.
$\textbf{Exclusion contour 14 (obs.) } -$ Observed 95% excluded regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.<br><b>Note:</b> As no observed exclusion is found for this model, the contour is empty.
$\textbf{Selected SR 14 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.
$\textbf{Selected SR 14 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.
$\textbf{Selected SR 14 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.
$\textbf{Selected SR 14 } -$ Selected signal regions in the plane of mm(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) or the direct stop/sbottom pair production in the well-tempered neutralino model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2, b1 -> t C1, b1 -> b N1, and b1 -> b N2) are considered with different branching ratio for each signal point for the $m_{q_{3L}} > m_{t_{R}}$. Only stop pair production is considered.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 1 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 1 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 1 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 1 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 2 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 2 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 2 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 2 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the mediator mass for a fixed mass of the DM candidate of 1 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 3 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 3 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 3 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 3 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis of a scalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 4 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 4 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 4 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{DM Upper Limit 4 } -$ Upper limit on the ratio of the DM production cross-section to the simplified model expectation under the hypothesis a pseudoscalar mediator. The limit is shown as a function of the DM candidate mass for a fixed mediator mass of 10 GeV. The coupling of the mediator to SM and DM particles is assumed to be g=1.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 1 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 1 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 1 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 1 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 2 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 2 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 2 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 2 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the bino LSP model in the m(STOP) vs m(STOP)-m(NEUTRALINO) plane.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 3 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu < 0
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 3 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu < 0
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 3 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu < 0
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 3 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu < 0
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 4 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu > 0
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 4 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu > 0
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 4 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu > 0
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 4 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the wino NLSP model with mu > 0
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 5 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 5 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 5 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 5 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 6 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 6 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 6 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 6 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 7 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 7 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 7 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 7 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 8 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 8 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 8 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 8 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 9 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 9 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 9 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 9 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 10 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 10 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 10 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 10 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the variable m(CHARGINO) - m(NEUTRALINO) higgsino LSP model with large tan beta.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 11 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the simplified model with m(STOP) - m(CHARGINO) = 10 GeV.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 11 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the simplified model with m(STOP) - m(CHARGINO) = 10 GeV.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 11 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the simplified model with m(STOP) - m(CHARGINO) = 10 GeV.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 11 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the simplified model with m(STOP) - m(CHARGINO) = 10 GeV.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 12 } -$ Observed 95% upper cross-section limit in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 12 } -$ Observed 95% upper cross-section limit in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 12 } -$ Observed 95% upper cross-section limit in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 12 } -$ Observed 95% upper cross-section limit in the plane of m(STOP) versus m(NEUTRALINO) for direct stop pair production in the higgsino LSP model where various decay modes (stop -> b C1, stop -> t N1, stop -> t N2) are considered with different branching ratios depending on the hypothesis being considered. In this model, dm(C1,N1) =5 GeV and dm(N2,N1)=10 GeV are assumed.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 13 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 13 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 13 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 13 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with left-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 14 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 14 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 14 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{X-section U.L. 14 } -$ Observed upper limit on the signal cross section for the well-tempered neutralino model with right-handed stop squarks.
$\textbf{Cutflow 1 } -$ Cutflow for tN_med for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 1 } -$ Cutflow for tN_med for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 1 } -$ Cutflow for tN_med for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 1 } -$ Cutflow for tN_med for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 2 } -$ Cutflow for tN_high for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (1000, 1) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 2 } -$ Cutflow for tN_high for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (1000, 1) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 2 } -$ Cutflow for tN_high for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (1000, 1) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 2 } -$ Cutflow for tN_high for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (1000, 1) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 3 } -$ Cutflow for bWN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 230) GeV in bWN. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 3 } -$ Cutflow for bWN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 230) GeV in bWN. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 3 } -$ Cutflow for bWN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 230) GeV in bWN. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 3 } -$ Cutflow for bWN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 230) GeV in bWN. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 4 } -$ Cutflow for bffN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 4 } -$ Cutflow for bffN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 4 } -$ Cutflow for bffN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 4 } -$ Cutflow for bffN for the pure bino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (350, 300) GeV. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 5 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_diag for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (737, 500, 250) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 5 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_diag for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (737, 500, 250) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 5 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_diag for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (737, 500, 250) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 5 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_diag for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (737, 500, 250) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 6 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_med for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (842, 300, 150) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 6 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_med for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (842, 300, 150) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 6 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_med for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (842, 300, 150) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 6 } -$ Cutflow for bC2x_med for the wino NLSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (842, 300, 150) GeV. Only stop pair production is considered in the cutflow. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 7 } -$ Cutflow for the simplified signal model with $\Delta m( \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = 10 GeV, considering $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (700, 690, 1). The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 7 } -$ Cutflow for the simplified signal model with $\Delta m( \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = 10 GeV, considering $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (700, 690, 1). The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 7 } -$ Cutflow for the simplified signal model with $\Delta m( \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = 10 GeV, considering $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (700, 690, 1). The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 7 } -$ Cutflow for the simplified signal model with $\Delta m( \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = 10 GeV, considering $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (700, 690, 1). The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 8 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_diag for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (400, 355, 350) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 8 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_diag for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (400, 355, 350) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 8 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_diag for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (400, 355, 350) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 8 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_diag for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (400, 355, 350) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 9 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_med for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 205, 200) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 9 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_med for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 205, 200) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 9 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_med for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 205, 200) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 9 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_med for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (600, 205, 200) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 10 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_high for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (800, 155, 150) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 10 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_high for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (800, 155, 150) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 10 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_high for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (800, 155, 150) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 10 } -$ Cutflow for bCsoft_high for the higgsino LSP signal model with $m(\tilde{t}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1} , \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1} )$ = (800, 155, 150) GeV, assuming $\tilde{t}_{1} \sim \tilde{t}_{\mathrm{L}}$ and large $\tan\beta$. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV. Numbers are provided for the discovery SR, even if a shape fit is used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Cutflow 11 } -$ Cutflow for DM_high for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (300, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 11 } -$ Cutflow for DM_high for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (300, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 11 } -$ Cutflow for DM_high for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (300, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 11 } -$ Cutflow for DM_high for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (300, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 12 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 12 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 12 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 12 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 13 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low_loose for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 13 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low_loose for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 13 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low_loose for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Cutflow 13 } -$ Cutflow for DM_low_loose for the spin-0 mediator model with $m(\phi, \chi)$ = (20, 1) GeV, assuming g=1 and a scalar mediator. The DxAOD skimming step requires at least one of the following criteria to be fullfilled: one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ triggers has fired and there is at least one loose muon (electron) with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 3.5 (4.5) GeV; or one of the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ or lepton triggers has fired and there is at least one loose lepton with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 25 GeV.
$\textbf{Acceptance 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 1 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 2 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the bino LSP model in the $m_{\tilde{t}_{1}}$ vs $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_{1},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ plane. Efficiencies larger than 100% are observed in the bWN SR due differences in $am_{\mathrm{T2}}$ between truth and reconstruction level, in the absence of $b$-tagging inefficiencies. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.
$\textbf{Acceptance 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.
$\textbf{Acceptance 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.
$\textbf{Acceptance 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.
$\textbf{Efficiency 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.
$\textbf{Efficiency 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.
$\textbf{Efficiency 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.
$\textbf{Efficiency 3 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the wino NLSP model with $\mu > 0$.
$\textbf{Acceptance 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 4 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV. The model assumes large $\tan\beta$ and the $\tilde{t}_{1}$ to be mostly $\tilde{t}_{L}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 5 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the higgsino LSP model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) = 5$ GeV, in the region where $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}) < m_{\textrm{top}}$. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.
$\textbf{Acceptance 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.
$\textbf{Acceptance 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.
$\textbf{Acceptance 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.
$\textbf{Efficiency 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.
$\textbf{Efficiency 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.
$\textbf{Efficiency 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.
$\textbf{Efficiency 6 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the simplified model with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}, \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}) = 10$ GeV.
$\textbf{Acceptance 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Acceptance 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
$\textbf{Efficiency 7 } -$ Acceptance and efficiency for the spin-0 mediator model, assuming a scalar mediator. Acceptance and efficiency numbers are provided for discovery SRs even if shape fits are used for placing exclusion limits.
A detailed study of multi-particle azimuthal correlations is presented using $pp$ data at $\sqrt{s}=5.02$ and 13 TeV, and $p$+Pb data at $\sqrt{s_{\rm{NN}}}=5.02$ TeV, recorded with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The azimuthal correlations are probed using four-particle cumulants $c_{n}\{4\}$ and flow coefficients $v_n\{4\}=(-c_{n}\{4\})^{1/4}$ for $n=2$ and 3, with the goal of extracting long-range multi-particle azimuthal correlation signals and suppressing the short-range correlations. The values of $c_{n}\{4\}$ are obtained as a function of the average number of charged particles per event, $\left\langle N_{\rm{ch}} \right\rangle$, using the recently proposed two-subevent and three-subevent cumulant methods, and compared with results obtained with the standard cumulant method. The three-subevent method is found to be least sensitive to short-range correlations, which originate mostly from jets with a positive contribution to $c_{n}\{4\}$. The three-subevent method gives a negative $c_{2}\{4\}$, and therefore a well-defined $v_2\{4\}$, nearly independent of $\left\langle N_{\rm{ch}} \right\rangle$, which provides direct evidence that the long-range multi-particle azimuthal correlations persist to events with low multiplicity. Furthermore, $v_2\{4\}$ is found to be smaller than the $v_2\{2\}$ measured using the two-particle correlation method, as expected for long-range collective behavior. Finally, the measured values of $v_2\{4\}$ and $v_2\{2\}$ are used to estimate the number of sources relevant for the initial eccentricity in the collision geometry.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.
The c_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the standard cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.2 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.4 GeV.
The c_3{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for pT > 0.6 GeV.
The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The v_2{4} values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The N_s calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The N_s values calculated for charged particles with 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.3 < pT < 3 GeV.
The N_s values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 13 TeV pp data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
The N_s values calculated for charged particles with 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV with the 3-subevent cumulant method from the 5.02 TeV p+Pb data. The event averaging is performed for N_{ch}^{Sel} calculated for 0.5 < pT < 5 GeV.
A search for $W'$-boson production in the $W' \rightarrow t\bar{b} \rightarrow q\bar{q}' b\bar{b}$ decay channel is presented using 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider in 2015 and 2016. The search is interpreted in terms of both a left-handed and a right-handed chiral $W'$ boson within the mass range 1-5 TeV. Identification of the hadronically decaying top quark is performed using jet substructure tagging techniques based on a shower deconstruction algorithm. No significant deviation from the Standard Model prediction is observed and the results are expressed as upper limits on the $W' \rightarrow t\bar{b}$ production cross-section times branching ratio as a function of the $W'$-boson mass. These limits exclude $W'$ bosons with right-handed couplings with masses below 3.0 TeV and $W'$ bosons with left-handed couplings with masses below 2.9 TeV, at the 95% confidence level.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the right-handed W'-boson cross-section times branching ratio of W' to tb decay as a function of the corresponding W'-boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the left-handed W'-boson cross-section times branching ratio of W' to tb decay as a function of the corresponding W'-boson mass.
Reconstructed mtb distribution in data and for the background after the fit to the data in the signal region SR1. The statistical uncertainty on data points is calculated using assymetric Poisson confidence intervals.
Reconstructed mtb distribution in data and for the background after the fit to the data in the signal region SR2. The statistical uncertainty on data points is calculated using assymetric Poisson confidence intervals.
Reconstructed mtb distribution in data and for the background after the fit to the data in the signal region SR3. The statistical uncertainty on data points is calculated using assymetric Poisson confidence intervals.
Reconstructed mtb distribution in data and for the background after the fit to the data in the validation region VR. The statistical uncertainty on data points is calculated using assymetric Poisson confidence intervals.
A search for a heavy neutral Higgs boson, $A$, decaying into a $Z$ boson and another heavy Higgs boson, $H$, 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 in 2015 and 2016 by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. The search considers the $Z$ boson decaying to electrons or muons and the $H$ boson into a pair of $b$-quarks. No evidence for the production of an $A$ boson is found. Considering each production process separately, the 95% confidence-level upper limits on the $pp\rightarrow A\rightarrow ZH$ production cross-section times the branching ratio $H\rightarrow bb$ are in the range of 14-830 fb for the gluon-gluon fusion process and 26-570 fb for the $b$-associated process for the mass ranges 130-700 GeV of the $H$ boson and process for the mass ranges 130-700 GeV of the $H$ boson and 230-800 GeV of the $A$ boson. The results are interpreted in the context of the two-Higgs-doublet model.
The signal efficiency for the production modes (gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production) and the signal regions used in the analysis. The efficiency denominator has the total number of generated MC events. The numerator includes the events passing the full signal region selection, including the mbb window cuts. The table shows for each signal mass pair (mA, mH) 3 efficiencies corresponding to the two production modes in the two categories, 2tag and 3tag. These corresponds to "nb = 2 category" and "nb >= 3 category", respectively, of the preprint. No numbers for gluon-gluon fusion in the 3tag category are provided since those are not used in the analysis. The efficiencies are given in fractions.
The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for a narrow width A boson produced via gluon-gluon fusion. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The result refers to the nb=2 category only.
The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for a narrow width A boson produced in association with b-quarks. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The result refers to the combination of the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories.
The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-I, tanbeta 1, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-I only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.
The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-I, tanbeta 5, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-I only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.
The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-I, tanbeta 10, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-I only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.
The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-I, tanbeta 20, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-I only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.
The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-II, tanbeta 1, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-II both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.
The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-II, tanbeta 5, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-II both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.
The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-II, tanbeta 10, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-II both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.
The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the type-II, tanbeta 20, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For type-II both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.
The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the lepton specific, tanbeta 1, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For lepton specific only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.
The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the lepton specific, tanbeta 2, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For lepton specific only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.
The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the lepton specific, tanbeta 3, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For lepton specific only gluon-gluon fusion is used and the nb=2 category only.
The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the flipped, tanbeta 1, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For flipped both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.
The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the flipped, tanbeta 5, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For flipped both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.
The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the flipped, tanbeta 10, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For flipped both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.
The cross section times BR(A->ZH) times BR(H->bb) limits for an A boson in the flipped, tanbeta 20, 2HDM. For each signal point, characterised by the mass pair (mA, mH), two limits are provided, the observed and the expected. The correct width as predicted by this particular parameter choice of the 2HDM is used. For flipped both gluon-gluon fusion and b-associated production are used and the nb=2 and nb>=3 categories are combined.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 130 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 130 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 140 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 140 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 150 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 150 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 160 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 160 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 170 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 170 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 180 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 180 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 190 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 190 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 210 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 210 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 220 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 220 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 230 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 230 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 240 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 240 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 250 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 250 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 260 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 260 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 270 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 270 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 280 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 280 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 290 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 290 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 310 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 310 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 320 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 320 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 330 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 330 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 340 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 340 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 350 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 350 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 360 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 360 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 370 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 370 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 380 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 380 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 390 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 390 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 400 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 400 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 410 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 410 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 420 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 420 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 430 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 430 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 440 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 440 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 450 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 450 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 460 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 460 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 470 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 470 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 480 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 480 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 490 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 490 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 510 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 510 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 520 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 520 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 530 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 530 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 540 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 540 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 550 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 550 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 560 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 560 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 570 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 570 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 580 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 580 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 590 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 590 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 600 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 600 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 610 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 610 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 620 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 620 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 630 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 630 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 640 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 640 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 650 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 650 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 660 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 660 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 670 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 670 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 680 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 680 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 690 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 690 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 700 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 700 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 200 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 200 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 300 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 300 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 500 GeV for the nb = 2 (2 tag) category.
The mass distribution of the llbb system used in the fit to derive the limits for the mbb window centered at 500 GeV for the nb >= 3 (3 tag) category.
A search for the supersymmetric partners of the Standard Model bottom and top quarks is presented. The search uses 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. Direct production of pairs of bottom and top squarks ($\tilde{b}_{1}$ and $\tilde{t}_{1}$) is searched for in final states with $b$-tagged jets and missing transverse momentum. Distinctive selections are defined with either no charged leptons (electrons or muons) in the final state, or one charged lepton. The zero-lepton selection targets models in which the $\tilde{b}_{1}$ is the lightest squark and decays via $\tilde{b}_{1} \rightarrow b \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$, where $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ is the lightest neutralino. The one-lepton final state targets models where bottom or top squarks are produced and can decay into multiple channels, $\tilde{b}_{1} \rightarrow b \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{b}_{1} \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}$, or $\tilde{t}_{1} \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ and $\tilde{t}_{1} \rightarrow b \tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}$, where $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}$ is the lightest chargino and the mass difference $m_{\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}}- m_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ is set to 1 GeV. No excess above the expected Standard Model background is observed. Exclusion limits at 95\% confidence level on the mass of third-generation squarks are derived in various supersymmetry-inspired simplified models.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <br/><b>Acceptance:</b><br/><i>symmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance1">b0L-SRA350</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance2">b0L-SRA450</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance3">b0L-SRA550</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance4">b0L-SRB</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance5">b0L-SRC</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance6">b0L-best</a><br/><i>asymmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance7">b1L-SRA300-2j</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance8">b1L-SRA450</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance9">b1L-SRA600</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance10">b1L-SRA750</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance11">b1L-SRB</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance12">b1L-best</a><br/><br/><b>Efficiency:</b><br/><i>symmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency1">b0L-SRA350</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency2">b0L-SRA450</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency3">b0L-SRA550</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency4">b0L-SRB</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency5">b0L-SRC</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency6">b0L-best</a><br/><i>asymmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency7">b1L-SRA300-2j</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency8">b1L-SRA450</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency9">b1L-SRA600</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency10">b1L-SRA750</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency11">b1L-SRB</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency12">b1L-best</a><br/><br/><b>Best SR Mapping:</b><br/><i>symmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=BestSR4">b0L</a><br/><i>asymmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=BestSR1">b1L</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=BestSR2">b0L</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=BestSR3">combined</a><br/><br/><b>Exclusion Contour:</b><br/><i>symmetric:</i> b0L-SRA350 <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour1">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour2">obs</a> b0L-SRA450 <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour5">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour6">obs</a> b0L-SRA550 <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour9">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour10">obs</a> b0L-SRB <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour11">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour12">obs</a> b0L-SRC <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour15">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour16">obs</a> b0L-best <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour17">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour18">obs</a><br/><i>asymmetric:</i> b0L-SRA350 <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour3">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour4">obs</a> b0L-SRA450 <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour7">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour8">obs</a> b0L-SRB <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour13">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour14">obs</a> b0L-best <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour19">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour20">obs</a> b1L-SRA300-2j <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour21">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour22">obs</a> b1L-SRA450 <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour23">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour24">obs</a> b1L-SRA600 <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour25">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour26">obs</a> b1L-SRA750 <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour27">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour28">obs</a> b1L-SRB <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour29">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour30">obs</a> b1L-best <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour31">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour32">obs</a> A-LowMass <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour33">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour34">obs</a> A-HighMass <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour35">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour36">obs</a> B combination <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour37">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour38">obs</a> Best combination <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour39">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour40">obs</a><br/><br/><b>SR Distribution:</b><br/><a href="79165?version=1&table=SRdistribution1">b0L-SRA</a>: $m_{\mathrm{CT}}$ <a href="79165?version=1&table=SRdistribution2">b0L-SRB</a>: $\mathrm{min[m_{T}(jet_{1-4}, E_{T}^{miss})]}$ <a href="79165?version=1&table=SRdistribution3">b0L-SRC</a>: ${\cal A}$ <a href="79165?version=1&table=SRdistribution4">b1L-SRA300-2j</a>: $\mathrm{m_{bb}}$ <a href="79165?version=1&table=SRdistribution5">b1L-SRA</a>: $\mathrm{m_{eff}}$ <a href="79165?version=1&table=SRdistribution6">b1L-SRB</a>: $\mathrm{m_{T}}$<br/><br/><b>Cross section upper limit:</b><br/><i>symmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection1">b0L-best</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection2">b0L-SRA350</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection3">b0L-SRA450</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection4">b0L-SRA550</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection5">b0L-SRB</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection6">b0L-SRC</a><br/><i>asymmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection7">b0L-best</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection8">b0L-SRA350</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection9">b0L-SRA450</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection10">b0L-SRB</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection11">b1L-best</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection12">b1L-SRA300-2j</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection13">b1L-SRA450</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection14">b1L-SRA600</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection15">b1L-SRA750</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection16">b1L-SRB</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection17">best combination</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection18">A-LowMass</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection19">A-HighMass</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection20">B combination</a><br/><br/><b>Cutflow:</b><br/><i>symmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=CutflowTable1">b0L-SRA (1 TeV, 1 GeV)</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=CutflowTable2">b0L-SRB (700 GeV, 450 GeV)</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=CutflowTable3">b0L-SRC (450 GeV, 430 GeV)</a><br/><i>mixed:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=CutflowTable4">b1L-SRA (700 GeV, 300 GeV)</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=CutflowTable5">b1L-SRA300-2j (700 GeV, 300 GeV)</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=CutflowTable6">b0L-SRA (700 GeV, 300 GeV)</a><br/><br/><b>Truth Code</b> and <b>SLHA Files</b> for the cutflows are available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - <br/><b>Acceptance:</b><br/><i>symmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance1">b0L-SRA350</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance2">b0L-SRA450</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance3">b0L-SRA550</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance4">b0L-SRB</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance5">b0L-SRC</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance6">b0L-best</a><br/><i>asymmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance7">b1L-SRA300-2j</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance8">b1L-SRA450</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance9">b1L-SRA600</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance10">b1L-SRA750</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance11">b1L-SRB</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Acceptance12">b1L-best</a><br/><br/><b>Efficiency:</b><br/><i>symmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency1">b0L-SRA350</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency2">b0L-SRA450</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency3">b0L-SRA550</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency4">b0L-SRB</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency5">b0L-SRC</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency6">b0L-best</a><br/><i>asymmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency7">b1L-SRA300-2j</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency8">b1L-SRA450</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency9">b1L-SRA600</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency10">b1L-SRA750</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency11">b1L-SRB</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Efficiency12">b1L-best</a><br/><br/><b>Best SR Mapping:</b><br/><i>symmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=BestSR4">b0L</a><br/><i>asymmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=BestSR1">b1L</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=BestSR2">b0L</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=BestSR3">combined</a><br/><br/><b>Exclusion Contour:</b><br/><i>symmetric:</i> b0L-SRA350 <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour1">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour2">obs</a> b0L-SRA450 <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour5">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour6">obs</a> b0L-SRA550 <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour9">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour10">obs</a> b0L-SRB <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour11">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour12">obs</a> b0L-SRC <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour15">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour16">obs</a> b0L-best <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour17">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour18">obs</a><br/><i>asymmetric:</i> b0L-SRA350 <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour3">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour4">obs</a> b0L-SRA450 <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour7">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour8">obs</a> b0L-SRB <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour13">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour14">obs</a> b0L-best <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour19">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour20">obs</a> b1L-SRA300-2j <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour21">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour22">obs</a> b1L-SRA450 <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour23">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour24">obs</a> b1L-SRA600 <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour25">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour26">obs</a> b1L-SRA750 <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour27">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour28">obs</a> b1L-SRB <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour29">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour30">obs</a> b1L-best <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour31">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour32">obs</a> A-LowMass <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour33">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour34">obs</a> A-HighMass <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour35">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour36">obs</a> B combination <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour37">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour38">obs</a> Best combination <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour39">exp</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Contour40">obs</a><br/><br/><b>SR Distribution:</b><br/><a href="79165?version=1&table=SRdistribution1">b0L-SRA</a>: $m_{\mathrm{CT}}$ <a href="79165?version=1&table=SRdistribution2">b0L-SRB</a>: $\mathrm{min[m_{T}(jet_{1-4}, E_{T}^{miss})]}$ <a href="79165?version=1&table=SRdistribution3">b0L-SRC</a>: ${\cal A}$ <a href="79165?version=1&table=SRdistribution4">b1L-SRA300-2j</a>: $\mathrm{m_{bb}}$ <a href="79165?version=1&table=SRdistribution5">b1L-SRA</a>: $\mathrm{m_{eff}}$ <a href="79165?version=1&table=SRdistribution6">b1L-SRB</a>: $\mathrm{m_{T}}$<br/><br/><b>Cross section upper limit:</b><br/><i>symmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection1">b0L-best</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection2">b0L-SRA350</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection3">b0L-SRA450</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection4">b0L-SRA550</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection5">b0L-SRB</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection6">b0L-SRC</a><br/><i>asymmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection7">b0L-best</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection8">b0L-SRA350</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection9">b0L-SRA450</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection10">b0L-SRB</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection11">b1L-best</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection12">b1L-SRA300-2j</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection13">b1L-SRA450</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection14">b1L-SRA600</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection15">b1L-SRA750</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection16">b1L-SRB</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection17">best combination</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection18">A-LowMass</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection19">A-HighMass</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=Limitoncrosssection20">B combination</a><br/><br/><b>Cutflow:</b><br/><i>symmetric:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=CutflowTable1">b0L-SRA (1 TeV, 1 GeV)</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=CutflowTable2">b0L-SRB (700 GeV, 450 GeV)</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=CutflowTable3">b0L-SRC (450 GeV, 430 GeV)</a><br/><i>mixed:</i> <a href="79165?version=1&table=CutflowTable4">b1L-SRA (700 GeV, 300 GeV)</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=CutflowTable5">b1L-SRA300-2j (700 GeV, 300 GeV)</a> <a href="79165?version=1&table=CutflowTable6">b0L-SRA (700 GeV, 300 GeV)</a><br/><br/><b>Truth Code</b> and <b>SLHA Files</b> for the cutflows are available under "Resources" (purple button on the left)
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA350 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA350 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA450 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA450 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA550 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA550 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRB signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRB signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRC signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRC signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L- best expected signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L- best expected signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA300-2j signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA300-2j signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA450 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA450 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA600 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA600 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA750 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA750 signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRB signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRB signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L- best expected signal region.
Signal acceptance (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L- best expected signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA350 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA350 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA450 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA450 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA550 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRA550 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRB signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRB signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRC signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L-SRC signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L- best expected signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino, for the b0L- best expected signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA300-2j signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA300-2j signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA450 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA450 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA600 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA600 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA750 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRA750 signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRB signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L-SRB signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L- best expected signal region.
Signal efficiency (in %) in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino, for the b1L- best expected signal region.
b1L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.
b1L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.
b0L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.
b0L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.
combined signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.
combined signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the asymmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino or top quark and chargino.
b0L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino.
b0L signal region with best expected exclusion limit in the ( M(SBOTTOM), M(NEUTRALINO) ) mass plane for the symmetric decay of the sbottom into bottom quark and neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA350 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA550 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRA550 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA550 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRA550 for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRC for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for b0L-SRC for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRC for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for b0L-SRC for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Observed exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with symmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino.
Expected exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for best b0L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA300-2j for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA300-2j for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA300-2j for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA300-2j for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA450 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA600 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA600 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA600 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA600 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA750 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRA750 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA750 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRA750 for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for b1L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for b1L-SRB for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for best b1L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for best b1L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for best b1L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for best b1L SR for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for A-LowMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for A-LowMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for A-LowMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for A-LowMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for A-HighMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for A-HighMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for A-HighMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for A-HighMass combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for B combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for B combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for B combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for B combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for best combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Expected exclusion limit for best combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for best combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
Observed exclusion limit for best combination for sbottom pair production with asymmetric decay into a bottom quark and a neutralino or a top quark and a chargino.
$m_{\mathrm{CT}}$ distribution in b0L-SRA. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$m_{\mathrm{CT}}$ distribution in b0L-SRA. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$\mathrm{min[m_{T}(jet_{1-4}, E_{T}^{miss})]}$ distribution in b0L-SRB. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$\mathrm{min[m_{T}(jet_{1-4}, E_{T}^{miss})]}$ distribution in b0L-SRB. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
${\cal A}$ distribution in b0L-SRC. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
${\cal A}$ distribution in b0L-SRC. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$\mathrm{m_{bb}}$ distribution in b1L-SRA300-2j. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$\mathrm{m_{bb}}$ distribution in b1L-SRA300-2j. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$\mathrm{m_{eff}}$ distribution in b1L-SRA. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$\mathrm{m_{eff}}$ distribution in b1L-SRA. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$\mathrm{m_{T}}$ distribution in b1L-SRB. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
$\mathrm{m_{T}}$ distribution in b1L-SRB. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the fit. The last bin includes overflows.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b0L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b0L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA350 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA350 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA550 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA550 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRC as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRC as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with symmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b0L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b0L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA350 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA350 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b0L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b1L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best b1L SR as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA300-2j as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA300-2j as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA450 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA600 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA600 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA750 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRA750 as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for b1L-SRB as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for best combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for A-LowMass combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for A-LowMass combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for A-HighMass combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for A-HighMass combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for B combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cross section excluded at 95% CL for B combination as a function of the sbottom and neutralino masses, for a pair produced sbottom with asymmetric decay into a bottom and a neutralino or a top and a chargino.
Cutflow table in b0L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 1 TeV decaying into a 1 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b0L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 1 TeV decaying into a 1 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b0L-SRB for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 450 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b0L-SRB for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 450 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b0L-SRC for a pair produced bottom squark of 450 GeV decaying into a 430 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b0L-SRC for a pair produced bottom squark of 450 GeV decaying into a 430 GeV neutralino in a symmetric decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b1L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b1L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b1L-SRA300-2j for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b1L-SRA300-2j for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b0L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.
Cutflow table in b0L-SRA for a pair produced bottom squark of 700 GeV decaying into a 300 GeV neutralino in a mixed decay scenario.
This article presents searches for the $Z\gamma$ decay of the Higgs boson and for narrow high-mass resonances decaying to $Z\gamma$, exploiting $Z$ boson decays to pairs of electrons or muons. The data analysis uses 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV recorded by the ATLAS detector at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. The data are found to be consistent with the expected Standard Model background. The observed (expected - assuming Standard Model $pp\to H\to Z\gamma$ production and decay) upper limit on the production cross section times the branching ratio for $pp\to H\to Z\gamma$ is 6.6 (5.2) times the Standard Model prediction at the 95% confidence level for a Higgs boson mass of 125.09 GeV. In addition, upper limits are set on the production cross section times the branching ratio as a function of the mass of a narrow resonance between 250 GeV and 2.4 TeV, assuming spin-0 resonances produced via gluon-gluon fusion, and spin-2 resonances produced via gluon-gluon or quark-antiquark initial states. For high-mass spin-0 resonances, the observed (expected) limits vary between 88 fb (61 fb) and 2.8 fb (2.7 fb) for the mass range from 250 GeV to 2.4 TeV at the 95% confidence level.
The measured sigma(pp-->X)xB(X->Z gamma) limit with the hypothesis of spin-0 resonance.
The measured sigma(pp-->X)xB(X->Z gamma) limit with the hypothesis of spin-2 resonance via gluon-gluon initial states.
The measured sigma(pp-->X)xB(X->Z gamma) limit with the hypothesis of spin-0 resonance via qqbar initial states.
A search for direct top squark pair production resulting in events with either a same-flavour opposite-sign dilepton pair with invariant mass compatible with a $Z$ boson or a pair of jets compatible with a Standard Model (SM) Higgs boson ($h$) is presented. Requirements on additional leptons, jets, jets identified as originating from $b$-quarks, and missing transverse momentum are imposed to target the other decay products of the top squark pair. The analysis is performed using proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV collected with the ATLAS detector at the LHC in 2015--2016, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. No excess is observed in the data with respect to the SM predictions. The results are interpreted in two sets of models. In the first set, direct production of pairs of lighter top squarks ($\tilde{t}_1$) with long decay chains involving $Z$ or Higgs bosons is considered. The second set includes direct pair production of the heavier top squark pairs ($\tilde{t}_2$) decaying via $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow Z \tilde{t}_1 $ or $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow h \tilde{t}_1$. The results exclude at 95\% confidence level $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{t}_1$ masses up to about 800 GeV, extending the exclusion region of supersymmetric parameter space covered by previous LHC searches.
Jet multiplicity distributions in control regions CR$^{3\ell 1b}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, after normalising the $t\bar{t}Z$ and multi-boson background processes via the simultaneous fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty in the background prediction. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.
Jet multiplicity distributions in control regions CR$^{3\ell 1b}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, after normalising the $t\bar{t}Z$ and multi-boson background processes via the simultaneous fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty in the background prediction. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.
Jet multiplicity distributions in control region CR$^{3\ell 1b}_{VV}$, after normalising the $t\bar{t}Z$ and multi-boson background processes via the simultaneous fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty in the background prediction. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.
Jet multiplicity distributions in control region CR$^{3\ell 1b}_{VV}$, after normalising the $t\bar{t}Z$ and multi-boson background processes via the simultaneous fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty in the background prediction. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.
Jet multiplicity distributions in control regions CR$^{1\ell 4b}_{t\bar{t},A}$, after normalising the $t\bar{t}$ background process via the simultaneous fit described in Section 5. The $t\bar{t}$ background normalisation is constrained to the data observation for jet multiplicity values above the requirements shown in Table 6. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.
Jet multiplicity distributions in control regions CR$^{1\ell 4b}_{t\bar{t},A}$, after normalising the $t\bar{t}$ background process via the simultaneous fit described in Section 5. The $t\bar{t}$ background normalisation is constrained to the data observation for jet multiplicity values above the requirements shown in Table 6. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.
Jet multiplicity distributions in control regions CR$^{1\ell 4b}_{t\bar{t},B}$, after normalising the $t\bar{t}$ background process via the simultaneous fit described in Section 5. The $t\bar{t}$ background normalisation is constrained to the data observation for jet multiplicity values above the requirements shown in Table 6. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.
Jet multiplicity distributions in control regions CR$^{1\ell 4b}_{t\bar{t},B}$, after normalising the $t\bar{t}$ background process via the simultaneous fit described in Section 5. The $t\bar{t}$ background normalisation is constrained to the data observation for jet multiplicity values above the requirements shown in Table 6. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.
Jet multiplicity distributions in control regions CR$^{1\ell 4b}_{t\bar{t},C}$, after normalising the $t\bar{t}$ background process via the simultaneous fit described in Section 5. The $t\bar{t}$ background normalisation is constrained to the data observation for jet multiplicity values above the requirements shown in Table 6. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.
Jet multiplicity distributions in control regions CR$^{1\ell 4b}_{t\bar{t},C}$, after normalising the $t\bar{t}$ background process via the simultaneous fit described in Section 5. The $t\bar{t}$ background normalisation is constrained to the data observation for jet multiplicity values above the requirements shown in Table 6. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow. The lower panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with the bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.
Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{3\ell 1b}_A$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.
Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{3\ell 1b}_A$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.
Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{3\ell 1b}_B$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.
Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{3\ell 1b}_B$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.
Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{3\ell 1b}_C$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.
Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{3\ell 1b}_C$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.
Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.
Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.
Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.
Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.
Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.
Distribution of $E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events passing all the signal candidate selection requirements, except that on $E^{T}_\text{miss}$, for SR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the mass of the $\tilde{t}_1$ for a fixed $(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0$ GeV, assuming $\text{BR}(\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to Z\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0.5$ and $\text{BR}(\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to h\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0.5$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the mass of the $\tilde{t}_1$ for a fixed $(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0$ GeV, assuming $\text{BR}(\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to Z\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0.5$ and $\text{BR}(\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to h\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0.5$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the mass of the $\tilde{t}_1$ for a fixed $(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0$ GeV, assuming $\text{BR}(\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to Z\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0.5$ and $\text{BR}(\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to h\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0.5$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the mass of the $\tilde{t}_1$ for a fixed $(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0$ GeV, assuming $\text{BR}(\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to Z\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0.5$ and $\text{BR}(\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to h\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 0.5$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the masses of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, for a fixed $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 180$ GeV and assuming a $\text{BR}(\tilde{t}_2 \to Z\tilde{t}_1) = 1$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the masses of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, for a fixed $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 180$ GeV and assuming a $\text{BR}(\tilde{t}_2 \to Z\tilde{t}_1) = 1$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the masses of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, for a fixed $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 180$ GeV and assuming a $\text{BR}(\tilde{t}_2 \to Z\tilde{t}_1) = 1$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the masses of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, for a fixed $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 180$ GeV and assuming a $\text{BR}(\tilde{t}_2 \to Z\tilde{t}_1) = 1$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the masses of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, for a fixed $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 180$ GeV and assuming a $\text{BR}(\tilde{t}_2 \to h\tilde{t}_1) = 1$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the masses of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, for a fixed $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 180$ GeV and assuming a $\text{BR}(\tilde{t}_2 \to h\tilde{t}_1) = 1$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the masses of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, for a fixed $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 180$ GeV and assuming a $\text{BR}(\tilde{t}_2 \to h\tilde{t}_1) = 1$.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the masses of the $\tilde{t}_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$, for a fixed $m(\tilde{t}_1)-m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1) = 180$ GeV and assuming a $\text{BR}(\tilde{t}_2 \to h\tilde{t}_1) = 1$.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $3\ell 1b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=600$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=250$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $3\ell 1b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=600$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=250$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $3\ell 1b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=600$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=250$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $3\ell 1b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=600$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=250$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $1\ell 4b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=600$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=250$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $1\ell 4b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=600$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=250$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. for the $3\ell 1b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=650$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=200$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. for the $3\ell 1b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=650$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=200$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $3\ell 1b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=650$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=200$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $3\ell 1b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=650$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=200$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $1\ell 4b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=650$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=200$ GeV.
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $1\ell 4b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=650$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=200$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $1\ell 4b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=650$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=200$ GeV.
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL from the analysis of $36.1 \; \text{fb}^{-1}$ of 13 TeV $pp$ collision data as a function of the $\tilde{t}_2$ branching ratio for $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$, $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ and $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ for the $1\ell 4b$ selection for the model $m(\tilde{t}_2)=650$ GeV $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=200$ GeV.
Background fit results for the control and validation regions in the 1$\ell$4$b$ selection. The nominal predictions from MC simulation are given for comparison for the $t\bar{t}$ background, which is normalised to data. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $tZ$, and $tWZ$ production. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated and do not necessarily add in quadrature to the total systematic uncertainty.
Background fit results for the control and validation regions in the 1$\ell$4$b$ selection. The nominal predictions from MC simulation are given for comparison for the $t\bar{t}$ background, which is normalised to data. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $tZ$, and $tWZ$ production. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated and do not necessarily add in quadrature to the total systematic uncertainty.
Summary of the main systematic uncertainties and their impact (in %) on the total SM background prediction in each of the signal regions studied. The total systematic uncertainty can be different from the sum in quadrature of individual sources due to the correlations between them resulting from the fit to the data. The quoted theoretical uncertainties include modelling and cross-section uncertainties.
Summary of the main systematic uncertainties and their impact (in %) on the total SM background prediction in each of the signal regions studied. The total systematic uncertainty can be different from the sum in quadrature of individual sources due to the correlations between them resulting from the fit to the data. The quoted theoretical uncertainties include modelling and cross-section uncertainties.
Observed and expected numbers of events the three 3$\ell$1$b$ Signal regions. The nominal predictions from MC simulation are given for comparison for those backgrounds, $t\bar{t} Z$, multi-boson that are normalised to data in dedicated control regions. For SR$^{3\ell 1b}_A$, SR$^{3\ell 1b}_B$ and SR$^{3\ell 1b}_C$, the "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Signal model-independent 95% CL upper limits on the visible BSM cross-section ($\sigma_{\mathrm{vis}}$), the visible number of signal events ($S^{95}_{\rm obs}$), the number of signal events ($S^{95}_{\rm exp}$) given the expected number of background events (and $\pm1\sigma$ variations of the expected background), and the discovery $p$-value ($p(s = 0)$), all calculated with pseudo-experiments, are also shown for each signal region.
Observed and expected numbers of events the three 3$\ell$1$b$ Signal regions. The nominal predictions from MC simulation are given for comparison for those backgrounds, $t\bar{t} Z$, multi-boson that are normalised to data in dedicated control regions. For SR$^{3\ell 1b}_A$, SR$^{3\ell 1b}_B$ and SR$^{3\ell 1b}_C$, the "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Signal model-independent 95% CL upper limits on the visible BSM cross-section ($\sigma_{\mathrm{vis}}$), the visible number of signal events ($S^{95}_{\rm obs}$), the number of signal events ($S^{95}_{\rm exp}$) given the expected number of background events (and $\pm1\sigma$ variations of the expected background), and the discovery $p$-value ($p(s = 0)$), all calculated with pseudo-experiments, are also shown for each signal region.
Observed and expected numbers of events in the three 1$\ell$4$b$ signal regions. The nominal predictions from MC simulation are given for comparison for those backgrounds, $t\bar{t}$, are normalised to data in dedicated control regions. For SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$, SR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ and SR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$, the "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $tZ$, and $tWZ$ production. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Signal model-independent 95% CL upper limits on the visible BSM cross-section ($\sigma_{\mathrm{vis}}$), the visible number of signal events ($S^{95}_{\rm obs}$), the number of signal events ($S^{95}_{\rm exp}$) given the expected number of background events (and $\pm1\sigma$ variations of the expected background), and the discovery $p$-value ($p(s = 0)$), all calculated with pseudo-experiments, are also shown for each signal region.
Observed and expected numbers of events in the three 1$\ell$4$b$ signal regions. The nominal predictions from MC simulation are given for comparison for those backgrounds, $t\bar{t}$, are normalised to data in dedicated control regions. For SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$, SR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ and SR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$, the "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $tZ$, and $tWZ$ production. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Signal model-independent 95% CL upper limits on the visible BSM cross-section ($\sigma_{\mathrm{vis}}$), the visible number of signal events ($S^{95}_{\rm obs}$), the number of signal events ($S^{95}_{\rm exp}$) given the expected number of background events (and $\pm1\sigma$ variations of the expected background), and the discovery $p$-value ($p(s = 0)$), all calculated with pseudo-experiments, are also shown for each signal region.
Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for the $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow h\tilde{t}_1$ models with $\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits 1 = A, 2 = B, 3 = C.
Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for the $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow h\tilde{t}_1$ models with $\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits 1 = A, 2 = B, 3 = C.
Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for the $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow Z\tilde{t}_1$ models with $\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits 1 = A, 2 = B, 3 = C.
Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for the $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow Z\tilde{t}_1$ models with $\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits 1 = A, 2 = B, 3 = C.
Jet multiplicity distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.
Jet multiplicity distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.
Jet multiplicity distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.
Jet multiplicity distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.
Jet multiplicity distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.
Jet multiplicity distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.
E$^{T}_\text{miss}$ distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.
E$^{T}_\text{miss}$ distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.
E$^{T}_\text{miss}$ distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.
E$^{T}_\text{miss}$ distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.
$E^{T}_\text{miss}$ distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.
$E^{T}_\text{miss}$ distributions in VR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The "Others" category contains the contributions from $t\bar{t} h$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t} t\bar{t}$, $Wh$, and $Zh$ production.
Jet multiplicity for events with at least 3 jets, one $b$-tagged jets for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. In order to enhance the contribution from fake or non-prompt leptons from $t\bar{t}$ events, the events are required to have at least one different flavour lepton pair and no same flavour pair with opposite charge.
Jet multiplicity for events with at least 3 jets, one $b$-tagged jets for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. In order to enhance the contribution from fake or non-prompt leptons from $t\bar{t}$ events, the events are required to have at least one different flavour lepton pair and no same flavour pair with opposite charge.
$E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events with at least 3 jets, one $b$-tagged jets for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. In order to enhance the contribution from fake or non-prompt leptons from $t\bar{t}$ events, the events are required to have at least one different flavour lepton pair and no same flavour pair with opposite charge.
$E^{T}_\text{miss}$ for events with at least 3 jets, one $b$-tagged jets for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. In order to enhance the contribution from fake or non-prompt leptons from $t\bar{t}$ events, the events are required to have at least one different flavour lepton pair and no same flavour pair with opposite charge.
$p_{\rm T}^{\ell\ell}$ for events with at least 3 jets, one $b$-tagged jets for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. In order to enhance the contribution from fake or non-prompt leptons from $t\bar{t}$ events, the events are required to have at least one different flavour lepton pair and no same flavour pair with opposite charge.
$p_{\rm T}^{\ell\ell}$ for events with at least 3 jets, one $b$-tagged jets for an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack; the bands represent the total uncertainty. In order to enhance the contribution from fake or non-prompt leptons from $t\bar{t}$ events, the events are required to have at least one different flavour lepton pair and no same flavour pair with opposite charge.
Distribution of $m_{bb}$ for events passing all the signal selection requirements, except that on $m_{bb}$, for SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.
Distribution of $m_{bb}$ for events passing all the signal selection requirements, except that on $m_{bb}$, for SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ after the background fit described in Section 5. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown; the bands represent the total uncertainty. The last bin in each figure contains the overflow.
Upper limits on cross-sections (in fb) at 95% CL for $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production with $\tilde{t}_1 \to t \tilde{\chi}^0_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to \tilde{\chi}^0_1 h$ with 50% BR and $\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to \tilde{\chi}^0_1 Z$ with 50% BR
Upper limits on cross-sections (in fb) at 95% CL for $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production with $\tilde{t}_1 \to t \tilde{\chi}^0_2$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to \tilde{\chi}^0_1 h$ with 50% BR and $\tilde{\chi}^0_2 \to \tilde{\chi}^0_1 Z$ with 50% BR
Upper limits on cross-sections (in fb) at 95% CL for $\tilde{t}_2$ pair production with $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ with $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$
Upper limits on cross-sections (in fb) at 95% CL for $\tilde{t}_2$ pair production with $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 h$ with $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$
Upper limits on cross-sections (in fb) at 95% CL for $\tilde{t}_2$ pair production with $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$ with $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$
Upper limits on cross-sections (in fb) at 95% CL for $\tilde{t}_2$ pair production with $\tilde{t}_2 \to \tilde{t}_1 Z$ with $\tilde{t}_1 \to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$
SR$^{3\ell 1b}_A$ acceptance for each signal model.
SR$^{3\ell 1b}_A$ acceptance for each signal model.
SR$^{3\ell 1b}_B$ acceptance for each signal model.
SR$^{3\ell 1b}_B$ acceptance for each signal model.
SR$^{3\ell 1b}_C$ acceptance for each signal model.
SR$^{3\ell 1b}_C$ acceptance for each signal model.
SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ acceptance for each signal model
SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ acceptance for each signal model
SR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ acceptance for each signal model
SR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ acceptance for each signal model
SR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ acceptance for each signal model
SR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ acceptance for each signal model
SR$^{3\ell 1b}_A$ efficiency for each signal model
SR$^{3\ell 1b}_A$ efficiency for each signal model
SR$^{3\ell 1b}_B$ efficiency for each signal model
SR$^{3\ell 1b}_B$ efficiency for each signal model
SR$^{3\ell 1b}_C$ efficiency for each signal model
SR$^{3\ell 1b}_C$ efficiency for each signal model
SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ efficiency for each signal model
SR$^{1\ell 4b}_A$ efficiency for each signal model
SR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ efficiency for each signal model
SR$^{1\ell 4b}_B$ efficiency for each signal model
SR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ efficiency for each signal model
SR$^{1\ell 4b}_C$ efficiency for each signal model
Number of signal events selected at different stages for some scenarios in the $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow h\tilde{t}_1$ with $\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ model.
Number of signal events selected at different stages for some scenarios in the $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow h\tilde{t}_1$ with $\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ model.
Number of signal events selected at different stages for some scenarios in the $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow Z\tilde{t}_1$ with $\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ model.
Number of signal events selected at different stages for some scenarios in the $\tilde{t}_2 \rightarrow Z\tilde{t}_1$ with $\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ model.
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.