Showing 10 of 844 results
The factor of four increase in the LHC luminosity, from $0.5\times 10^{34}\,\textrm{cm}^{-2}\textrm{s}^{-1}$ to $2.0\times 10^{34}\textrm{cm}^{-2}\textrm{s}^{-1}$, and the corresponding increase in pile-up collisions during the 2015-2018 data-taking period, presented a challenge for ATLAS to trigger on missing transverse momentum. The output data rate at fixed threshold typically increases exponentially with the number of pile-up collisions, so the legacy algorithms from previous LHC data-taking periods had to be tuned and new approaches developed to maintain the high trigger efficiency achieved in earlier operations. A study of the trigger performance and comparisons with simulations show that these changes resulted in event selection efficiencies of >98% for this period, meeting and in some cases exceeding the performance of similar triggers in earlier run periods, while at the same time keeping the necessary bandwidth within acceptable limits.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 25$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.
A comparison of the measured cell $E_T^{miss}$ distribution with that predicted by the two-component model for two pile-up scenarios. The magenta points extend the measured distribution using L1 $E_T^{miss} > 30\,$GeV and L1 $E_T^{miss} > 50\,$GeV data. The red curve is the prediction from the calorimeter-resolution part of the model. The green curve is the high $E_T^{miss}$ tail's probability distribution for the mean number of $pp$ interactions $\mu$ in each figure. The blue curve is the full model prediction computed by combining the $E_T^{miss}$ from these two individual sources shown in red and green, each calculated for $\mu=\langle\mu\rangle$. The black points show the unbiased $E_T^{miss}$ distribution measured in data. Corresponds to a prediction for $\langle\mu\rangle = 55$.
The $E_T^{miss}$ model predicted trigger rate as a function of $\mu$ for the cell $E_T^{miss}$ algorithm with a threshold of $80\,$GeV and $120\,$GeV, assuming no additional pile-up mitigation.
The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger efficiency, shown as a function of $p_T(\mu\mu)$ in $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events.
The efficiencies in the plot are shown for events satisfying a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection and with $p_T(\mu\mu)$ larger than $150\,$GeV vs pile-up for each of the four years of data taking.
The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$) in the year 2017.
The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$) in the year 2017.
The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for runs in three different periods ($\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$) in the year 2017.
The L1 $E_T^{miss}$ trigger efficiency is shown as a function of mean pile-up for events satisfying a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection and with $p_T(\mu\mu)$ larger than $150\,$GeV in three periods during the year 2017.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $0\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 20$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $20\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 30$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $30\leq\langle\mu\rangle < 40$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.
Background acceptance vs signal efficiency for each of four individual HLT $E_T^{miss}$ algorithms for a $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selection with $p_T(\mu\mu) > 175\,$GeV for data recorded in the year 2017. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger. $40\leq\langle\mu\rangle$.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Relative background acceptance fraction vs. relative efficiency for two different $p_T(\mu\mu)>150\,$GeV threshold for data recorded in the year 2018. Two of the curves show the performance of the stand-alone cell algorithm and the stand-alone pufit algorithm. The other two show combined algorithms each formed by requiring that the event satisfy both a fixed threshold (either 65 GeV or 70 GeV as shown in the legend) for the cell algorithm and a pufit threshold which varies along the curve. In each plot the background acceptance fractions and the efficiencies are relative to those of the pufit $E_T^{miss} > 110\,$GeV trigger and thus can be greater than one. The diamond indicates the performance of the pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV trigger while the cross indicates the performance of the combined (pufit $E_T^{miss}>110\,$GeV and cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV) trigger.
Turn-on efficiency curves are shown for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events for three algorithms: the cell algorithm alone, the pufit algorithm alone and the combined cell+pufit algorithm. The thresholds are set such that the algorithms have equal rates, and the data were recorded in the year 2018. Here the trigger efficiency is shown with respect to $p_T(\mu\mu)$.
Turn-on efficiency curves are shown for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events for three algorithms: the cell algorithm alone, the pufit algorithm alone and the combined cell+pufit algorithm. The thresholds are set such that the algorithms have equal rates, and the data were recorded in the year 2018. Here the trigger efficiency is shown with respect to the offline $E_T^{miss}$ calculation with muons treated as being invisible.
Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for a $p_T(\mu\mu)$ threshold of 150 GeV.
Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an offline $E_T^{miss}$ threshold of 150 GeV.
Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an $p_T(\mu\mu)$ threshold of 175 GeV.
Efficiencies for $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ events are shown for the L1 $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV trigger and for the complete L1+HLT trigger chain that also requires pufit > 110 GeV. Each is shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for an offline $E_T^{miss}$ threshold of 175 GeV.
HLT_xe70_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2015.
HLT_xe90_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2016.
HLT_xe110_mht trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2016.
HLT_xe110_pufit trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2017. This trigger included an implicit requirement of cell $E_T^{miss}>50\,$GeV.
HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65 trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2018.
HLT_xe110_pufit_xe70 trigger output rate as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ shown for an example run in year 2018.
Full-chain trigger efficiencies for each year as a function of $p_T(\mu\mu)$. The efficiency corresponds to that of the lowest unprescaled trigger that is adjusted throughout each year.
Full-chain trigger efficiencies for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $p_T(\mu\mu)>150$ GeV. The efficiency corresponds to that of the lowest unprescaled trigger that is adjusted throughout the year.
Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $W\rightarrow e\nu$ and $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selections with offline $E_T^{miss}>150\,$GeV.
Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $t\bar t$ with offline $E_T^{miss}>150\,$GeV.
Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $W\rightarrow e\nu$ and $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ selections with offline $E_T^{miss}>175\,$GeV.
Efficiencies for the first-level trigger L1XE50 and the combined L1+HLT trigger chain HLT_xe110_pufit_xe65_L1XE50 in data recorded in the year 2018 are shown as a function of $\langle\mu\rangle$ for $t\bar t$ with offline $E_T^{miss}>175\,$GeV.
A search for heavy neutral Higgs bosons is performed using the LHC Run 2 data, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector. The search for heavy resonances is performed over the mass range 0.2-2.5 TeV for the $\tau^+\tau^-$ decay with at least one $\tau$-lepton decaying into final states with hadrons. The data are in good agreement with the background prediction of the Standard Model. In the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, values of $\tan\beta>8$ and $\tan\beta>21$ are excluded at the 95% confidence level for neutral Higgs boson masses of 1.0 TeV and 1.5 TeV, respectively, where $\tan\beta$ is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs doublets.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-veto category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 400, 1000 and 1500 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 6, 12 and 25 respectively in the mh125 scenario are also provided. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 1000 and 1500 GeV is scaled by 100 in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Higgs boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Higgs boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Higgs boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Higgs boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered for the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. No theoretical uncertainty is considered when computing these limits.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Acceptance times efficiency for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Expected 95% CL upper limits on the scalar boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the scalar boson mass and the fraction of the b-associated production. The limits are calculated from a statistical combination of the 1l1tau_h and 2tau_h channels.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Observed two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 250 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 300 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 350 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 400 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 600 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 700 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 800 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1200 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 1500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2000 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
Expected two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times branching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the scalar boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively. The value of $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ for 2500 GeV signal mass point is shown in the HEPData table.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the hMSSM scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the hMSSM scenario is 0.8 and the highest value of mass is 2 TeV. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\chi})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The observed 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(\widetilde{\tau})$ scenario is 0.5. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The range of $\tan\beta$ shown in the paper figure and the HEPData is from 1 to 60. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The observed 95% CL upper limits with one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus one sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with plus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
The expected 95% CL upper limits with minus two sigma on $\tan\beta$ as a function of $m_{A}$ in the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario. The lowest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 1.0. The highest value of $\tan\beta$ considered by the $M_{h}^{125}(alignment)$ scenario is 20.0. The points in the region which is called "Not applicable" in the paper figure are kept in the HEPData table. Linear connection is applied in the range of signal mass points from 400 to 1000 GeV in the paper figure. The theoretical uncertainty of signal cross section is considered.
Azimuthal anisotropies of muons from charm and bottom hadron decays are measured in Pb+Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_\mathrm{NN}}= 5.02$ TeV. The data were collected with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider in 2015 and 2018 with integrated luminosities of $0.5~\mathrm{nb}^{-1}$ and $1.4~\mathrm{nb^{-1}}$, respectively. The kinematic selection for heavy-flavor muons requires transverse momentum $4 < p_\mathrm{T} < 30$ GeV and pseudorapidity $|\eta|<2.0$. The dominant sources of muons in this $p_\mathrm{T}$ range are semi-leptonic decays of charm and bottom hadrons. These heavy-flavor muons are separated from light-hadron decay muons and punch-through hadrons using the momentum imbalance between the measurements in the tracking detector and in the muon spectrometers. Azimuthal anisotropies, quantified by flow coefficients, are measured via the event-plane method for inclusive heavy-flavor muons as a function of the muon $p_\mathrm{T}$ and in intervals of Pb+Pb collision centrality. Heavy-flavor muons are separated into contributions from charm and bottom hadron decays using the muon transverse impact parameter with respect to the event primary vertex. Non-zero elliptic ($v_{2}$) and triangular ($v_{3}$) flow coefficients are extracted for charm and bottom muons, with the charm muon coefficients larger than those for bottom muons for all Pb+Pb collision centralities. The results indicate substantial modification to the charm and bottom quark angular distributions through interactions in the quark-gluon plasma produced in these Pb+Pb collisions, with smaller modifications for the bottom quarks as expected theoretically due to their larger mass.
Summary of results for Inclusive HF muon v2 as a function of pT for different centrality. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for Inclusive HF muon v3 as a function of pT for different centrality. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for charm muon v2 as a function of pT for different centrality. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for bottom muon v2 as a function of pT for different centrality. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for charm muon v3 as a function of pT for different centrality. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for bottom muon v3 as a function of pT for different centrality. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
A search for pair production of scalar leptoquarks, each decaying into either an electron or a muon and a top quark, is presented. This is the first leptoquark search using ATLAS data to investigate top-philic cross-generational couplings that could provide explanations for recently observed anomalies in $B$ meson decays. This analysis targets high leptoquark masses which cause the decay products of each resultant top quark to be contained within a single high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}$ large-radius jet. The full Run 2 dataset is exploited, consisting of 139 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected from proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV from 2015 to 2018 with the ATLAS detector at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. In the absence of any significant deviation from the background expectation, lower limits on the leptoquark masses are set at 1480 GeV and 1470 GeV for the electron and muon channel, respectively.
Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the leptoquark pair production cross section as a function of leptoquark mass under the assumption of $\mathcal{B}$(LQ->$te$)=1.
Expected and observed upper limits at the 95% CL on the leptoquark pair production cross section as a function of leptoquark mass under the assumption of $\mathcal{B}$(LQ->$t\mu$)=1.
Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the leptoquark mass as a function of the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}$(LQ->$te$).
Expected and observed 95% CL lower limits on the leptoquark mass as a function of the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}$(LQ->$t\mu$).
The ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider reports a search for charged-lepton-flavour violation in decays of $Z$ bosons into a τ lepton and an electron or muon of opposite charge.
The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the CRZ$\tau\tau$ for the $\mu\tau$ channel for events with 1-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.
The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the CRZ$\tau\tau$ for the $\mu\tau$ channel for events with 3-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.
The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the VRSS for the $e\tau$ channel for events with 1-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.
The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the VRSS for the $e\tau$ channel for events with 3-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.
The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $e\tau$ channel for events with 1-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.
The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $e\tau$ channel for events with 3-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.
The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $\mu\tau$ channel for events with 1-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.
The best-fit expected and observed distributions of the combined NN output in the SR for the $\mu\tau$ channel for events with 3-prong $\tau_\text{had-vis}$ candidates. The last bin in each plot includes overflow events.
Observed and expected upper limits on $\mathcal{B}(Z\rightarrow\ell\tau)$ at 95% confidence level.
Inclusive and differential cross-sections for the production of top quarks in association with a photon are measured with proton$-$proton collision data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The data were collected by the ATLAS detector at the LHC during Run 2 between 2015 and 2018 at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV. The measurements are performed in a fiducial volume defined at parton level. Events with exactly one photon, one electron and one muon of opposite sign, and at least two jets, of which at least one is $b$-tagged, are selected. The fiducial cross-section is measured to be $39.6\,^{+2.7}_{-2.3}\,\textrm{fb}$. Differential cross-sections as functions of several observables are compared with state-of-the-art Monte Carlo simulations and next-to-leading-order theoretical calculations. These include cross-sections as functions of photon kinematic variables, angular variables related to the photon and the leptons, and angular separations between the two leptons in the event. All measurements are in agreement with the predictions from the Standard Model.
The measured fiducial cross-section in the electron-muon channel. The first uncertainty is the statistical uncertainty and the second one is the systematic uncertainty.
The absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the photon pT in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the photon $|\eta|$ in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the minimum $\Delta R$ between the photon and the leptons in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $\Delta\phi$ between the two leptons in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta\eta|$ between the two leptons in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the photon pT in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the photon $|\eta|$ in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the minimum $\Delta R$ between the photon and the leptons in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $\Delta\phi$ between the two leptons in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta\eta|$ between the two leptons in the electron-muon channel. The uncertainty is decomposed into four components which are the signal modelling uncertainty, the background modelling uncertainty, the experimental uncertainty, and the data statistical uncertainty.
The total correlation matrix of the absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the photon pT in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the photon $|\eta|$ in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the minimum $\Delta R$ between the photon and the leptons in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $\Delta\phi$ between the two leptons in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the absolute differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta\eta|$ between the two leptons in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the photon pT in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the photon $|\eta|$ in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the minimum $\Delta R$ between the photon and the leptons in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $\Delta\phi$ between the two leptons in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The total correlation matrix of the normalised differential cross-section measured in the fiducial phase-space as a function of the $|\Delta\eta|$ between the two leptons in the electron-muon channel. The individual systematic uncertainties are symmetrized before deriving the correlation matrix.
The statistical correlation matrix of all the absolute differential cross-sections measured in the fiducial phase-space in the electron-muon channel.
The statistical correlation matrix of all the normalised differential cross-sections measured in the fiducial phase-space in the electron-muon channel.
Fiducial region definition.
The elliptic flow of muons from the decay of charm and bottom hadrons is measured in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV using a data sample with an integrated luminosity of 150 pb$^{-1}$ recorded by the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The muons from heavy-flavor decay are separated from light-hadron decay muons using momentum imbalance between the tracking and muon spectrometers. The heavy-flavor decay muons are further separated into those from charm decay and those from bottom decay using the distance-of-closest-approach to the collision vertex. The measurement is performed for muons in the transverse momentum range 4-7 GeV and pseudorapidity range $|\eta|<2.4$. A significant non-zero elliptic anisotropy coefficient $v_{2}$ is observed for muons from charm decays, while the $v_{2}$ value for muons from bottom decays is consistent with zero within uncertainties.
Summary of results for inclusive muon v2 as a function of multiplicity. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for inclusive muon v2 as a function of pT. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for charm and bottom muon v2 as a function of multiplicity. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Summary of results for charm and bottom muon v2 as a function of pT. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.
Inclusive and differential fiducial cross sections of the Higgs boson are measured in the $H \to ZZ^{*} \to 4\ell$ ($\ell = e,\mu$) decay channel. The results are based on proton$-$proton collision data produced at the Large Hadron Collider at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV and recorded by the ATLAS detector from 2015 to 2018, equivalent to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The inclusive fiducial cross section for the $H \to ZZ^{*} \to 4\ell$ process is measured to be $\sigma_\mathrm{fid} = 3.28 \pm 0.32$ fb, in agreement with the Standard Model prediction of $\sigma_\mathrm{fid, SM} = 3.41 \pm 0.18 $ fb. Differential fiducial cross sections are measured for a variety of observables which are sensitive to the production and decay of the Higgs boson. All measurements are in agreement with the Standard Model predictions. The results are used to constrain anomalous Higgs boson interactions with Standard Model particles.
Fractional uncertainties for the inclusive fiducial and total cross sections, and range of systematic uncertainties for the differential measurements. The columns e/$\mu$ and jets represent the experimental uncertainties in lepton and jet reconstruction and identification, respectively. The Z + jets, $t\bar{t}$, tXX (Other Bkg.) column includes uncertainties related to the estimation of these background sources. The $ZZ^{*}$ theory ($ZZ^{*}$ th.) uncertainties include the PDF and scale variations. Signal theory (Sig th.) uncertainties include PDF choice, QCD scale, and shower modelling of the signal. Finally, the column labelled Comp. contains uncertainties related to production mode composition and unfolding bias which affect the response matrices. The uncertainties have been rounded to the nearest 0.5%, except for the luminosity uncertainty which has been measured to be 1.7%.
Expected (pre-fit) and observed number of events in the four decay final states after the event selection, in the mass range 115< $m_{4l}$ < 130 GeV. The sum of the expected number of SM Higgs boson events and the estimated background yields is compared to the data. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are included for the predictions.
The fiducial and total cross sections of Higgs boson production measured in the 4l final state. The fiducial cross sections are given separately for each decay final state, and for same- and different-flavour decays. The inclusive fiducial cross section is measured as the sum of all final states ($\sigma_{sum}$), as well as by combining the per-final state measurements assuming SM $ZZ^{*} \to 4l$ relative branching ratios ($\sigma_{comb}$). For the total cross section ($\sigma_{tot}$), the Higgs boson branching ratio at $m_{H}$= 125 GeV is assumed. The total SM prediction is accurate to N3LO in QCD and NLO EW for the ggF process. The cross sections for all other Higgs boson production modes XH are added. For the fiducial cross section predictions, the SM cross sections are multiplied by the acceptances determined using the NNLOPS sample for ggF. The p-values indicating the compatibility of the measurement and the SM prediction are shown as well. They do not include the systematic uncertainty in the theoretical predictions.
Correlation matrix between the fiducial cross sections for the four individual decay final states and the $ZZ^{*}$ normalisation factor.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum $p_{T}^{4l}$ of the Higgs boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 . Measured value in the last bin is un upper limit at 95% CL.
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum $p_{T}^{4l}$ of the Higgs boson.
Differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass $m_{12}$ of the leading Z boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass $m_{12}$ of the leading Z boson.
Differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass $m_{34}$ of the subleading Z boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass $m_{34}$ of the subleading Z boson.
Differential fiducial cross section for the rapidity $|y_{4l}|$ of the Higgs boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the rapidity $|y_{4l}|$ of the Higgs boson.
Differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $|\cos\theta^{*}|$ of the leading Z boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $|\cos\theta^{*}|$ of the leading Z boson.
Differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $\cos\theta_{1}$ of the anti-lepton from the leading Z boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $\cos\theta_{1}$ of the anti-lepton from the leading Z boson.
Differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $\cos\theta_{2}$ of the anti-lepton from the subleading Z boson. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the production angle $\cos\theta_{2}$ of the anti-lepton from the subleading Z boson.
Differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi$ of the decay planes of the two reconstructed Z bosons. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi$ of the decay planes of the two reconstructed Z bosons.
Differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi_{1}$ of the decay plane of the leading Z boson and the plane formed between its four-momentum and the z-axis. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi_{1}$ of the decay plane of the leading Z boson and the plane formed between its four-momentum and the z-axis.
Differential fiducial cross section for the jet multiplicity $N_{jets}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the jet multiplicity $N_{jets}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the inclusive jet multiplicity $N_{jets}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Differential fiducial cross section for the number of b-quark initiated jets $N_{b-jets}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the number of b-quark initiated jets $N_{b-jets}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$ in events with at least one jet. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$ in events with at least one jet.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the subleading jet $p_{T}^{sublead.jet}$ in events with at least two jets. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the subleading jet $p_{T}^{sublead.jet}$ in events with at least two jets.
Differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the two highest-pT jets $m_{jj}$ in events with at least two jets. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the two highest-pT jets $m_{jj}$ in events with at least two jets.
Differential fiducial cross section for the distance between the two highest-pT jets in pseudorapidity $\Delta\eta_{jj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the distance between the two highest-pT jets in pseudorapidity $\Delta\eta_{jj}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the distance between the two highest-pT jets in $\phi$ $\Delta\phi_{jj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the distance between the two highest-pT jets in $\phi$ $\Delta\phi_{jj}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system, in events with at least one jet $p_{T}^{4lj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system, in events with at least one jet $p_{T}^{4lj}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus di-jet system, in events with at least two jets $p_{T}^{4ljj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 . Measured value in the last bin is un upper limit at 95% CL.
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus di-jet system, in events with at least two jets $p_{T}^{4ljj}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the four lepton plus jet system in events with at least one jet $m_{4lj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the four lepton plus jet system in events with at least one jet $m_{4lj}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the four lepton plus di-jet system in events with at least two jets $m_{4ljj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the invariant mass of the four lepton plus di-jet system in events with at least two jets $m_{4ljj}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$ in $ll\mu\mu$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$ in $llee$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass m12 vs. m34 in $ll\mu\mu$ and $llee$ final states.
Differential fiducial cross section of the $p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution in $|y_{4l}|$ bins. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section of the $p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution in $|y_{4l}|$ bins.
Differential fiducial cross section of the $p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution in $N_{jets}$ bins. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section of the $p_{T}^{4l}$ distribution in $N_{jets}$ bins.
Differential fiducial cross section for transverse momentum of the four lepton system vs. the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$p_{T}^{4lj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for transverse momentum of the four lepton system vs. the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$p_{T}^{4lj}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system vs the invariant mass of the four lepton plus jet system $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$m_{4lj}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton plus jet system vs the invariant mass of the four lepton plus jet system $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$m_{4lj}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton vs the transverse momentum of the leading jet $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$p_{T}^{l.jet}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the four lepton vs the transverse momentum of the leading jet $p_{T}^{4l}$vs.$p_{T}^{lead.jet}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet vs the rapidity of the leading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$vs.$|y^{lead.jet}|$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet vs the rapidity of the leading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$vs.$|y^{lead.jet}|$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet vs the transverse momentum of the subleading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$vs.$p_{T}^{sublead.jet}$. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the transverse momentum of the leading jet vs the transverse momentum of the subleading jet $p_{T}^{lead.jet}$vs.$p_{T}^{sublead.jet}$.
Differential fiducial cross section for the leading Z boson mass $m_{12}$ in $4\mu$ and $4e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Differential fiducial cross section for the leading Z boson mass $m_{12}$ in $2e2\mu$ and $2\mu2e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the leading Z boson mass $m_{12}$ in $4l$ and $2l2l$ final states.
Differential fiducial cross section for the subleading Z boson mass $m_{34}$ in $4\mu$ and $4e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Differential fiducial cross section for the subleading Z boson mass $m_{34}$ in $2e2\mu$ and $2\mu2e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the subleading Z boson mass $m_{34}$ in $4l$ and $2l2l$ final states.
Differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi$ of the decay planes of the two reconstructed Z bosons in $4\mu$ and $4e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi$ of the decay planes of the two reconstructed Z bosons in $2e2\mu$ and $2\mu2e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the azimuthal angle $\phi$ of the decay planes of the two reconstructed Z bosons in $4l$ and $2l2l$ final states.
Differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$ in $4\mu$ and $4e$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$ in $2\mu2e$ and $2e2\mu$ final states. The measured cross sections are compared to predictions provided by NNLOPS + XH. NNLOPS is normalised to the N3LO total cross section with a K-factor = 1.1 .
Correlation matrix between the measured cross sections and the $ZZ^{*}$ background normalization corresponding to the differential fiducial cross section for the leading vs. subleading Z boson mass $m_{12}$vs.$m_{34}$ in $4l$ and $2l2l$ final states.
This paper presents a search for dark matter in the context of a two-Higgs-doublet model together with an additional pseudoscalar mediator, $a$, which decays into the dark-matter particles. Processes where the pseudoscalar mediator is produced in association with a single top quark in the 2HDM+$a$ model are explored for the first time at the LHC. Several final states which include either one or two charged leptons (electrons or muons) and a significant amount of missing transverse momentum are considered. The analysis is based on proton-proton collision data collected with the ATLAS experiment at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV during LHC Run2 (2015-2018), corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. No significant excess above the Standard Model predictions is found. The results are expressed as 95% confidence-level limits on the parameters of the signal models considered.
Efficiencies of the DMt samples in the tW1L channel for all bins in the SR. The efficiency is defined as the number of weighted reconstructed events over the number of weighted TRUTH events in the SR. The maps include all samples in the $m_a - m_H$ plane with $tan\beta = 1$.
Acceptances on TRUTH level of the DMt samples in the tW1L channel for all bins in the SR. The acceptance is defined as the number of weighted TRUTH events in the SR over the number of expected events without any selections. The maps include all samples in the $m_a - m_H$ plane with $tan\beta = 1$.
Efficiencies of the DMt samples in the tW1L channel for all bins in the SR. The efficiency is defined as the number of weighted reconstructed events over the number of weighted TRUTH events in the SR. The maps include all samples in the $m_H - tan\beta$ plane with $m_a = 250~GeV$.
Acceptances on TRUTH level of the DMt samples in the tW1L channel for all bins in the SR. The acceptance is defined as the number of weighted TRUTH events in the SR over the number of expected events without any selections. The maps include all samples in the $m_H - tan\beta$ plane with $m_a = 250~GeV$.
Efficiencies of the DMt samples in the tW2L SR. The efficiency is defined as the number of weighted reconstructed events over the number of weighted TRUTH events in the SR. The maps include all samples in the $m_a - m_H$ plane with $tan\beta = 1$.
Acceptances on TRUTH level of the DMt samples in the tW2L SR. The acceptance is defined as the number of weighted TRUTH events in the SR over the number of expected events without any selections. The maps include all samples in the $m_a - m_H$ plane with $tan\beta = 1$.
Efficiencies of the DMt samples in the tW2L SR. The efficiency is defined as the number of weighted reconstructed events over the number of weighted TRUTH events in the SR. The maps include all samples in the $m_H - tan\beta$ plane with $m_a = 250~GeV$.
Acceptances on TRUTH level of the DMt samples in the tW2L SR. The acceptance is defined as the number of weighted TRUTH events in the SR over the number of expected events without any selections. The maps include all samples in the $m_H - tan\beta$ plane with $m_a = 250~GeV$.
Efficiencies of the DMt samples in the tj1L channel for all bins in the SR. The efficiency is defined as the number of weighted reconstructed events over the number of weighted TRUTH events in the SR. The map includes all used samples in the $m_H - tan\beta$ plane with $m_a = 250~GeV$.
Acceptances on TRUTH level of the DMt samples in the tj1L channel for all bins in the SR. The acceptance is defined as the number of weighted TRUTH events in the SR over the number of expected events without any selections. The map includes all used samples in the $m_H - tan\beta$ plane with $m_a = 250~GeV$.
Upper limits on signal strength (excluded cross section over theoretical cross section) of the tW1L analysis considering only DMt signal.
Upper limits on excluded cross sections of the tW1L analysis considering only the DMt signal.
The expected exclusion contours as a function of $(m_a, m_{H^{\pm}})$, assuming only $tW$+DM contributions, for the tW1L analysis channel.
The observed exclusion contours as a function of $(m_a, m_{H^{\pm}})$, assuming only $tW$+DM contributions, for the tW1L analysis channel.
Upper limits on signal strength (excluded cross section over theoretical cross section) of the tW1L analysis considering only DMt signal.
Upper limits on excluded cross sections of the tW1L analysis considering only the DMt signal.
The expected exclusion contours as a function of $(m_{H^{\pm}}, \tan\beta)$, assuming only $tW$+DM contributions, for the tW1L analysis channel.
The observed exclusion contours as a function of $(m_{H^{\pm}}, \tan\beta)$, assuming only $tW$+DM contributions, for the tW1L analysis channel.
Upper limits on signal strength (excluded cross section over theoretical cross section) of the tW2L analysis considering only DMt signal.
Upper limits on excluded cross sections of the tW2L analysis considering only the DMt signal.
The expected exclusion contours as a function of $(m_a, m_{H^{\pm}})$, assuming only $tW$+DM contributions, for the tW2L analysis channel.
The observed exclusion contours as a function of $(m_a, m_{H^{\pm}})$, assuming only $tW$+DM contributions, for the tW2L analysis channel.
Upper limits on signal strength (excluded cross section over theoretical cross section) of the tW2L analysis considering only DMt signal.
Upper limits on excluded cross sections of the tW2L analysis considering only the DMt signal.
The expected exclusion contours as a function of $(m_{H^{\pm}}, \tan\beta)$, assuming only $tW$+DM contributions, for the tW2L analysis channel.
The observed exclusion contours as a function of $(m_{H^{\pm}}, \tan\beta)$, assuming only $tW$+DM contributions, for the tW2L analysis channel.
Upper limits on signal strength (excluded cross section over theoretical cross section) of the combined tW1L and tW2L analyses considering only the DMt signal.
Upper limits on excluded cross sections of the combined tW1L and tW2L analyses considering only the DMt signal.
The expected exclusion contours as a function of $(m_a, m_{H^{\pm}})$, assuming only $tW$+DM contributions, for the statistical combination of the tW1L and tW2L analysis channel.
The observed exclusion contours as a function of $(m_a, m_{H^{\pm}})$, assuming only $tW$+DM contributions, for the statistical combination of the tW1L and tW2L analysis channel.
Upper limits on signal strength (excluded cross section over theoretical cross section) of the combined tW1L and tW2L analyses considering only the DMt signal.
Upper limits on excluded cross sections of the combined tW1L and tW2L analyses considering only the DMt signal.
The expected exclusion contours as a function of $(m_{H^{\pm}}, \tan\beta)$, assuming only $tW$+DM contributions, for the statistical combination of the tW1L and tW2L analysis channel.
The observed exclusion contours as a function of $(m_{H^{\pm}}, \tan\beta)$, assuming only $tW$+DM contributions, for the statistical combination of the tW1L and tW2L analysis channel.
Upper limits on signal strength (excluded cross section over theoretical cross section) of the tW1L analysis considering the DMt$\bar{t}$+DMt signal.
The expected exclusion contours as a function of $(m_a, m_{H^{\pm}})$, assuming DM$t\bar{t}$ and DM$t$ contributions, for the tW1L analysis channel.
The observed exclusion contours as a function of $(m_a, m_{H^{\pm}})$, assuming DM$t\bar{t}$ and DM$t$ contributions, for the tW1L analysis channel.
Upper limits on signal strength (excluded cross section over theoretical cross section) of the tW1L analysis considering the DMt$\bar{t}$+DMt signal.
The expected exclusion contours as a function of $(m_{H^{\pm}}, \tan\beta)$, assuming DM$t\bar{t}$ and DM$t$ contributions, for the tW1L analysis channel.
The observed exclusion contours as a function of $(m_{H^{\pm}}, \tan\beta)$, assuming DM$t\bar{t}$ and DM$t$ contributions, for the tW1L analysis channel.
Upper limits on signal strength (excluded cross section over theoretical cross section) of the tW2L analysis considering the DMt$\bar{t}$+DMt signal.
The expected exclusion contours as a function of $(m_a, m_{H^{\pm}})$, assuming DM$t\bar{t}$ and DM$t$ contributions, for the tW2L analysis channel.
The observed exclusion contours as a function of $(m_a, m_{H^{\pm}})$, assuming DM$t\bar{t}$ and DM$t$ contributions, for the tW2L analysis channel.
Upper limits on signal strength (excluded cross section over theoretical cross section) of the tW2L analysis considering the DMt$\bar{t}$+DMt signal.
The expected exclusion contours as a function of $(m_{H^{\pm}}, \tan\beta)$, assuming DM$t\bar{t}$ and DM$t$ contributions, for the tW2L analysis channel.
The observed exclusion contours as a function of $(m_{H^{\pm}}, \tan\beta)$, assuming DM$t\bar{t}$ and DM$t$ contributions, for the tW2L analysis channel.
Upper limits on signal strength (excluded cross section over theoretical cross section) of the combined tW1L and tW2L analyses considering the DMt$\bar{t}$+DMt signal.
The expected exclusion contours as a function of $(m_a, m_{H^{\pm}})$, assuming DM$t\bar{t}$ and DM$t$ contributions, for the statistical combination of the tW1L and tW2L analysis channel.
The observed exclusion contours as a function of $(m_a, m_{H^{\pm}})$, assuming DM$t\bar{t}$ and DM$t$ contributions, for the statistical combination of the tW1L and tW2L analysis channel.
Upper limits on signal strength (excluded cross section over theoretical cross section) of the combined tW1L and tW2L analyses considering the DMt$\bar{t}$+DMt signal.
The expected exclusion contours as a function of $(m_{H^{\pm}}, \tan\beta)$, assuming DM$t\bar{t}$ and DM$t$ contributions, for the statistical combination of the tW1L and tW2L analysis channel.
The observed exclusion contours as a function of $(m_{H^{\pm}}, \tan\beta)$, assuming DM$t\bar{t}$ and DM$t$ contributions, for the statistical combination of the tW1L and tW2L analysis channel.
Upper limits on signal strength (excluded cross section over theoretical cross section) of the tj1L analysis considering only the DMt signal.
Upper limits on upper limits on excluded cross sections of the tj1L analysis considering only the DMt signal.
The expected and observed cross section exclusion limits as a function of $m_{H^{\pm}}$ in the tj1L analysis channel for signal models with $m_a = 250~GeV$, and $\tan\beta=0.3$. The $\sigma^{}_\mathrm{BSM}$ is the cross section of the $t$-channel DM production process.
The expected and observed cross section exclusion limits as a function of $m_{H^{\pm}}$ in the tj1L analysis channel for signal models with $m_a = 250~GeV$, and $\tan\beta=0.5$. The $\sigma^{}_\mathrm{BSM}$ is the cross section of the $t$-channel DM production process.
Cross sections of the DMt samples in the tW1L channel. The maps include all samples in the $m_a - m_H$ plane with $tan\beta = 1$.
Cross sections of the DMt samples in the tW1L channel. The maps include all samples in the $m_H - tan\beta$ plane with $m_a = 250~GeV$.
Cross sections times branching ratio of the DMt samples in the tW2L channel. The maps include all samples in the $m_a - m_H$ plane with $tan\beta = 1$.
Cross sections times branching ratio of the DMt samples in the tW2L channel. The maps include all samples in the $m_H - tan\beta$ plane with $m_a = 250~GeV$.
Cross sections of the DMt samples in the tj1L channel. The map includes all samples in the $m_H - tan\beta$ plane with $m_a = 250~GeV$.
MC generator filter efficiencies of the DMt samples in the tW1L channel. The maps include all samples in the $m_a - m_H$ plane with $tan\beta = 1$.
MC generator filter efficiencies of the DMt samples in the tW1L channel. The maps include all samples in the $m_H - tan\beta$ plane with $m_a = 250~GeV$.
MC generator filter efficiencies of the DMt samples in the tW2L channel. The maps include all samples in the $m_a - m_H$ plane with $tan\beta = 1$.
MC generator filter efficiencies of the DMt samples in the tW2L channel. The maps include all samples in the $m_H - tan\beta$ plane with $m_a = 250~GeV$.
MC generator filter efficiencies of the DMt samples in the tj1L channel. The map includes all samples in the $m_H - tan\beta$ plane with $m_a = 250~GeV$.
Background-only fit results for the tW1L and tW2L signal regions. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (rare processes such as triboson, Higgs boson production processes, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t}WW$ and non-prompt or misidentified leptons background) are grouped and labelled as ``Others´´. The quoted uncertainties on the fitted SM background include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Background-only fit results for the tj1L signal regions. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount ($Z$+jets, rare processes such as $tWZ$, triboson, Higgs boson production processes, ,$t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t}WW$) are grouped and labelled as ``Others´´. The quoted uncertainties on the fitted SM background include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Cutflow of the weighted events with statistical uncertainties for two DMt samples in all bins of the tW1L channel. The PreSelection includes at least 1 lepton in the event, at least 1 $b$-jet with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50~GeV$, $m\mathrm{_{T}^{lep}} > 30~GeV$, $\Delta\phi\mathrm{_{4jets, MET}^{min}} > 0.5$ and $E\mathrm{_{T}^{miss}} > 200~GeV$.
Cutflow of the weighted events with statistical uncertainties for two DMt samples in the tW2L channel. The PreSelection includes at least 2 leptons in the event, at least 1 $b$-jet with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 40~GeV$, $m_{ll} > 40~GeV$, $m\mathrm{_{T2}} > 40~GeV$, $\Delta\phi\mathrm{_{4jets, MET}^{min}} > 0.5$ and $E\mathrm{_{T}^{miss}} > 200~GeV$.
Cutflow of the weighted events with the statistical uncertainties (except for the first cuts) for two DMt samples in all bins off the tj1L channel. The PreSelection includes at least 1 lepton in the event, at least 1 $b$-jet with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 50~GeV$, $m\mathrm{_{T}^{lep}} > 30~GeV$, $\Delta\phi\mathrm{_{4jets, MET}^{min}} > 0.5$ and $E\mathrm{_{T}^{miss}} > 200~GeV$.
The results of a search for direct pair production of top squarks and for dark matter in events with two opposite-charge leptons (electrons or muons), jets and missing transverse momentum are reported, using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity from proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, collected by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider during Run 2 (2015-2018). This search considers the pair production of top squarks and is sensitive across a wide range of mass differences between the top squark and the lightest neutralino. Additionally, spin-0 mediator dark-matter models are considered, in which the mediator is produced in association with a pair of top quarks. The mediator subsequently decays to a pair of dark-matter particles. No significant excess of events is observed above the Standard Model background, and limits are set at 95% confidence level. The results exclude top squark masses up to about 1 TeV, and masses of the lightest neutralino up to about 500 GeV. Limits on dark-matter production are set for scalar (pseudoscalar) mediator masses up to about 250 (300) GeV.
Two-body selection. Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in $SR^{2-body}_{110,\infty}$ for (a) different-flavour and (b) same-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference dark-matter signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.
Two-body selection. Distributions of $m_{T2}$ in $SR^{2-body}_{110,\infty}$ for (a) different-flavour and (b) same-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference dark-matter signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Three-body selection. Distributions of $M_{\Delta}^R$ in (a,b) $SR_{W}^{3-body}$ and (c,d) $SR_{T}^{3-body}$ for (left) same-flavour and (right) different-flavour events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panels indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Four-body selection. (a) distributions of $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Small\,\Delta m}$ and (b) distribution of $R_{2\ell 4j}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Large\,\Delta m}$ for events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panel indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Four-body selection. (a) distributions of $E_{T}^{miss}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Small\,\Delta m}$ and (b) distribution of $R_{2\ell 4j}$ in $SR^{4-body}_{Large\,\Delta m}$ for events satisfying the selection criteria of the given SR, except the one for the presented variable, after the background fit. The contributions from all SM backgrounds are shown as a histogram stack. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. The hatched bands represent the total statistical and systematic uncertainty. The rightmost bin of each plot includes overflow events. Reference top squark pair production signal models are overlayed for comparison. Red arrows in the upper panel indicate the signal region selection criteria. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the total SM background prediction, with hatched bands representing the total uncertainty in the background prediction; red arrows show data outside the vertical-axis range.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the Observed limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100\% branching ratio, in the (a) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{t}_1)$--$\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limits and their $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainties. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the mediator mass for a DM particle mass of $m(\chi)=1$ GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}, DF}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}, SF}$ and $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t} Z}$. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Three-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{2-body}}_{t\bar{t}Z}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{VR(1)}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$ and $\mathrm{VR(2)}^{\mathrm{3-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$. ''Others'' includes contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$ processes. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Four-body selection. Background fit results for $\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$,$\mathrm{CR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{VV}$, $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{t\bar{t}}$, $VR^{4-body}_{VV}$ and $\mathrm{VR}^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{VV,lll}$. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for the different-flavour leptons binned SRs. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for the same-flavour leptons binned SRs. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Three-body selection. Observed event yields and background fit results for the three-body selection SRs. The ''Others'' category contains contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Entries marked `--' indicate a negligible background contribution (less than 0.001 events). The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Four-body selection. Observed event yields and background fit results for SR$^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{\mathrm{Small}\,\Delta m}$ and SR$^{\mathrm{4-body}}_{\mathrm{Large}\,\Delta m}$. The ''Others'' category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. The individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up in quadrature to the total background uncertainty.
Exclusion limits contours (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with 100% branching ratio in $\tilde{t}_1--\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The exclusion limits contours for the two-body, three-body and four-body selections are respectively shown in blue, green and red.
Exclusion limits contours (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with 100% branching ratio in $\tilde{t}_1--\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses planes. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm 1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The exclusion limits contours for the two-body, three-body and four-body selections are respectively shown in blue, green and red.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm 1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b W \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty. The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty.The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limit contour (95% CL) for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, decaying via $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with 100% branching ratio, in $\tilde{t}_1$--$\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ masses plane. The dashed lines and the shaded bands are the expected limit and its $\pm1\sigma$ uncertainty.The thick solid lines are the observed limits for the central value of the signal cross-section. The expected and observed limits do not include the effect of the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines show the effect on the observed limit when varying the signal cross-section by $\pm1\sigma$ of the theoretical uncertainty. The observed (a) and expected (b) CLs values are respectively shown.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Exclusion limits for (a) $t\bar{t} + \phi $ scalar and (b) $t\bar{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models as a function of the DM particle mass for a mediator mass of 10 GeV. The limits are calculated at 95% CL and are expressed in terms of the ratio of the excluded cross-section to the nominal cross-section for a coupling assumption of $g = g_q = g_{\chi} = 1$. The solid (dashed) lines shows the observed (expected) exclusion limits.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection efficiency (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection efficiency (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection Efficiency (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection Efficiency (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta\ m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ t \tilde{t} +\phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + \phi$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-DF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-DF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-DF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-DF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-DF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) SR-SF$^{2-body}_{[110,120)}$, (b) SR-SF1$^{2-body}_{[120,140)}$, (c) SR-SF2$^{2-body}_{[140,160)}$, (d) SR-SF3$^{2-body}_{[160,180)}$, (e) SR-SF4$^{2-body}_{[180,220)}$, (f) SR-SF5$^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $t \tilde{t} + a$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection acceptance (a) $SR^{2-body}_{[110,\infty)}$ , (b) $SR^{2-body}_{[120,\infty)}$ , (c) $SR^{2-body}_{[140,\infty)}$ , (d) $SR^{2-body}_{[160,\infty)}$ , (e) $SR^{2-body}_{[180,\infty)}$ , (f) $SR^{2-body}_{[200,\infty)}$ , (g) $SR^{2-body}_{[220,\infty)}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Three-body selection acceptance (a) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (b) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{t}$, (c) SR-DF$^{3-body}_{W}$, (d) SR-SF$^{3-body}_{W}$ for a simplified model assuming $ \tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection acceptance (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Four-body selection acceptance (a) SR$^{4-body}_{Small \Delta m}$ , (b) $SR^{4-body}_{Large \Delta m}$ for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the observed upper limits on the signal strenght for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Three-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal strenght for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Four-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal strenght for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for (a) a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production, (b) for $t\tilde{t} + a $ pseudoscalar models, (c) for $t\tilde{t} + \phi $ scalar models. In Figure (a), the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Three-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Four-body selection The numbers indicate the upper limits on the signal cross-section for a simplified model assuming $\tilde{t}_1$ pair production. For comparison, the red line corresponds to the observed limit.
Two-body selection. Background fit results for the $inclusive$ SRs. The Others category contains the contributions from $VVV$, $t\bar{t} t$, $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$, $t\bar{t} W$, $t\bar{t} WW$, $t\bar{t} WZ$, $t\bar{t} H$, and $tZ$. Combined statistical and systematic uncertainties are given. Note that the individual uncertainties can be correlated, and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total background uncertainty.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow t^{(*)}\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=600~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=400~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the scalar signal model $t\bar{t} + \phi $ with $m(\phi)=150~ GeV$ and $m(\chi)=1~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the pseudoscalar signal model $t\bar{t} + a $ with $m(a)=150~ GeV$ and $m(\chi)=1~ GeV$ in the SRs for the two-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=385~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=400~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=430~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow bW\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=550~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=460~ GeV$ in the SRs for the three-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=400~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=380~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=460~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=415~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
Cut flow for the simplified signal model $\tilde{t}_1 \rightarrow b l \nu \tilde{\chi}^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1)=400~ GeV$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}^0_1)=320~ GeV$ in the SRs for the four-body selection. The number of events is normalized to the cross-section and to an integrated luminosity of $139~fb^{-1}$.
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 on the query string syntax can also be found in the OpenSearch 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.