Showing 10 of 27 results
This paper reports the results of a search for strong production of supersymmetric particles in 20.1 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The search is performed separately in events with either zero or at least one high $p_\mathrm{T}$ lepton (electron or muon), large missing transverse momentum, high jet multiplicity and at least three jets identified as originated from the fragmentation of a b-quark. No excess is observed with respect to the Standard Model predictions. The results are interpreted in the context of several supersymmetric models involving gluinos and scalar top and bottom quarks, as well as a mSUGRA/CMSSM model. Gluino masses up to 1340 GeV are excluded, depending on the model, significantly extending the previous ATLAS limits.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.
95% CL upper limits on the cross section [fb].
Number of signal events.
Acceptance [%].
Efficiency [%].
Experimental uncertainty.
Expected CLs.
Observed CLs.
Best signal region.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.
95% CL upper limits on the cross section [fb].
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour.
95% CL upper limits on the cross section [fb].
Number of signal events.
Acceptance [%].
Efficiency [%].
Uncertainty [%].
Expected CLs.
Observed CLs.
Best signal region.
Best signal region.
A search for squarks and gluinos in final states containing high-$p_{\rm T}$ jets, missing transverse momentum and no electrons or muons is presented. The data were recorded in 2012 by the ATLAS experiment in $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV proton-proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, with a total integrated luminosity of $20.3 \mathrm{fb}^{-1}$. No significant excess above the Standard Model expectation is observed. Results are interpreted in a variety of simplified and specific supersymmetry-breaking models assuming that R-parity is conserved and that the lightest neutralino is the lightest supersymmetric particle. An exclusion limit at the 95% confidence level on the mass of the gluino is set at 1330 GeV for a simplified model incorporating only a gluino and the lightest neutralino. For a simplified model involving the strong production of first- and second-generation squarks, squark masses below 850 GeV (440 GeV) are excluded for a massless lightest neutralino, assuming mass degenerate (single light-flavour) squarks. In mSUGRA/CMSSM models with $\tan\beta=30$, $A_0=-2m_0$ and $\mu> 0$, squarks and gluinos of equal mass are excluded for masses below 1700 GeV. Additional limits are set for non-universal Higgs mass models with gaugino mediation and for simplified models involving the pair production of gluinos, each decaying to a top squark and a top quark, with the top squark decaying to a charm quark and a neutralino. These limits extend the region of supersymmetric parameter space excluded by previous searches with the ATLAS detector.
The effective mass distribution in 2-jet loose signal region.
The effective mass distribution in 2-jet medium and tight signal regions.
The effective mass distribution in 2-jet (W) signal region.
The effective mass distribution in 3-jet signal region.
The effective mass distribution in 4-jet (W) signal region.
The effective mass distribution in 4-jet very-loose and loose signal regions.
The effective mass distribution in 4-jet medium signal region.
The effective mass distribution in 4-jet tight signal region.
The effective mass distribution in 5-jet signal region.
The effective mass distribution in 6-jet loose and medium signal regions.
The effective mass distribution in 6-jet tight signal region.
The effective mass distribution in 6-jet very-tight signal region.
Observed limit 95% CL.
Expected limit 95% CL.
Observed limit 95% CL +1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL -1 sigma.
Expected limit 95% CL +1 sigma.
Expected limit 95% CL -1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL.
Expected limit 95% CL.
Observed limit 95% CL +1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL -1 sigma.
Expected limit 95% CL +1 sigma.
Expected limit 95% CL -1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL (m_chi^0_1=0GeV).
Expected limit 95% CL (m_chi^0_1=0GeV).
Observed limit 95% CL +1 sigma (m_chi^0_1=0GeV).
Observed limit 95% CL -1 sigma (m_chi^0_1=0GeV).
Expected limit 95% CL +1 sigma (m_chi^0_1=0GeV).
Expected limit 95% CL -1 sigma (m_chi^0_1=0GeV).
Observed limit 95% CL (m_chi^0_1=395GeV).
Expected limit 95% CL (m_chi^0_1=395GeV).
Observed limit 95% CL (m_chi^0_1=695GeV).
Expected limit 95% CL (m_chi^0_1=695GeV).
Expected limit 95% CL.
Expected limit 95% CL -1 sigma.
Expected limit 95% CL +1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL -1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL +1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL.
Expected limit 95% CL.
Expected limit 95% CL -1 sigma.
Expected limit 95% CL +1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL -1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL +1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL.
Expected limit 95% CL.
Expected limit 95% CL -1 sigma.
Expected limit 95% CL +1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL -1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL +1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL.
Observed CLs contour for the pair-produced gluinos each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to two quarks, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Observed CLs contour with plus 1-sigma signal cross-section uncertainty for the pair-produced gluinos each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to two quarks, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Observed CLs contour with minus 1-sigma signal cross-section uncertainty for the pair-produced gluinos each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to two quarks, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Expected CLs contour for the pair-produced gluinos each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to two quarks, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Expected CLs contour with plus 1-sigma experimental uncertainty for the pair-produced gluinos each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to two quarks, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Expected CLs contour with minus 1-sigma experimental uncertainty for the pair-produced gluinos each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to two quarks, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Observed CLs contour for the pair-produced gluinos each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to two quarks, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Observed CLs contour with plus 1-sigma signal cross-section uncertainty for the pair-produced gluinos each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to two quarks, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Observed CLs contour with minus 1-sigma signal cross-section uncertainty for the pair-produced gluinos each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to two quarks, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Expected CLs contour for the pair-produced gluinos each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to two quarks, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Expected CLs contour with plus 1-sigma experimental uncertainty for the pair-produced gluinos each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to two quarks, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Expected CLs contour with minus 1-sigma experimental uncertainty for the pair-produced gluinos each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to two quarks, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Observed CLs contour for the pair-produced squarks each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to a quark, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Observed CLs contour with plus 1-sigma signal cross-section uncertainty for the pair-produced squarks each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to a quark, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Observed CLs contour with minus 1-sigma signal cross-section uncertainty for the pair-produced squarks each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to a quark, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Expected CLs contour for the pair-produced squarks each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to a quark, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Expected CLs contour with plus 1-sigma experimental uncertainty for the pair-produced squarks each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to a quark, a W boson and a neutralino1.
First of two expected CLs contours with minus 1-sigma experimental uncertainty for the pair-produced squarks each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to a quark, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Second of two expected CLs contours with minus 1-sigma experimental uncertainty for the pair-produced squarks each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to a quark, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Observed CLs contour for the pair-produced squarks each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to a quark, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Observed CLs contour with plus 1-sigma signal cross-section uncertainty for the pair-produced squarks each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to a quark, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Observed CLs contour with minus 1-sigma signal cross-section uncertainty for the pair-produced squarks each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to a quark, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Expected CLs contour for the pair-produced squarks each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to a quark, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Expected CLs contour with plus 1-sigma experimental uncertainty for the pair-produced squarks each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to a quark, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Expected CLs contour with minus 1-sigma experimental uncertainty for the pair-produced squarks each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to a quark, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Expected limit 95% CL -1 sigma.
Expected limit 95% CL +1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL -1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL +1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL.
Expected limit 95% CL.
Expected limit 95% CL.
Expected limit 95% CL -1 sigma.
Expected limit 95% CL +1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL -1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL +1 sigma.
Observed limit 95% CL.
Signal region for points.
Signal region for points.
Signal region for points (m_chi^0_1=0GeV).
Signal region for points (m_chi^0_1=395GeV).
Signal region for points (m_chi^0_1=695GeV).
Observed 95% CL cross-section upper limit for pair-produced gluinos decaying directly.
Observed 95% CL cross-section upper limit for associated gluino-squark production.
Observed 95% CL cross-section upper limit for pair-produced squarks decaying directly.
Observed 95% CL cross-section upper limit for the pair-produced gluinos each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to two quarks, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Observed 95% CL cross-section upper limit for the pair-produced gluinos each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to two quarks, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Observed 95% CL cross-section upper limit for the pair-produced squarks each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to quark, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Observed 95% CL cross-section upper limit for the pair-produced squarks each decaying via an intermediate chargino1 to quark, a W boson and a neutralino1.
Signal region for points.
Observed 95% CL cross-section upper limit for pair-produced gluinos decaying via stops into top+charm+neutralino1.
Production cross-section in PB.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR2jl.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR2jl.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR2jl.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR2jm.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR2jm.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR2jm.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR2jt.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR2jt.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR2jt.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR2jW.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR2jW.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR2jW.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR3j.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR3j.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR3j.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR4jW.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR4jW.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR4jW.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR4jl-.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR4jl-.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR4jl-.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR4jl.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR4jl.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR4jl.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR4jm.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR4jm.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR4jm.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR4jt.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR4jt.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR4jt.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR5j.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR5j.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR5j.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR6jl.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR6jl.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR6jl.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR6jm.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR6jm.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR6jm.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR6jt.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR6jt.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR6jt.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR6jt+.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR6jt+.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR6jt+.
Production cross-section in PB.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR2jl.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR2jl.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR2jl.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR2jm.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR2jm.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR2jm.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR2jt.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR2jt.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR2jt.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR2jW.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR2jW.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR2jW.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR3j.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR3j.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR3j.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR4jW.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR4jW.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR4jW.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR4jl-.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR4jl-.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR4jl-.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR4jl.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR4jl.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR4jl.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR4jm.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR4jm.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR4jm.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR4jt.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR4jt.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR4jt.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR5j.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR5j.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR5j.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR6jl.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR6jl.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR6jl.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR6jm.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR6jm.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR6jm.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR6jt.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR6jt.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR6jt.
Signal acceptance in PCT for SR6jt+.
Signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency in PCT for SR6jt+.
Uncertainty on signal acceptance times reconstruction efficiency for SR6jt+.
Two searches for supersymmetric particles in final states containing a same-flavour opposite-sign lepton pair, jets and large missing transverse momentum are presented. The proton-proton collision data used in these searches were collected at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}=8$ TeV by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 20.3 fb$^{-1}$. Two leptonic production mechanisms are considered: decays of squarks and gluinos with $Z$ bosons in the final state, resulting in a peak in the dilepton invariant mass distribution around the $Z$-boson mass; and decays of neutralinos (e.g. $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2} \rightarrow \ell^{+}\ell^{-}\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$), resulting in a kinematic endpoint in the dilepton invariant mass distribution. For the former, an excess of events above the expected Standard Model background is observed, with a significance of 3 standard deviations. In the latter case, the data are well-described by the expected Standard Model background. The results from each channel are interpreted in the context of several supersymmetric models involving the production of squarks and gluinos.
The observed and expected dielectron invariant mass distribution in SR-Z. The negigible estimated contribution from Z+jets is omitted in these distributions.
The observed and expected dimuon invariant mass distribution in SR-Z. The negigible estimated contribution from Z+jets is omitted in these distributions.
The observed and expected $E_T^{miss}$ distribution in the dielectron SR-Z. The negigible estimated contribution from Z+jets is omitted in these distributions. The last bin contains the overflow.
The observed and expected $E_T^{miss}$ distribution in the dimuon SR-Z. The negigible estimated contribution from Z+jets is omitted in these distributions. The last bin contains the overflow.
The observed and expected dielectron invariant mass distribution in SR-loose. The last bin contains the overflow.
The observed and expected dimuon invariant mass distribution in SR-loose. The last bin contains the overflow.
The observed and expected dielectron invariant mass distribution in the two-jet $b$-veto SR. The last bin contains the overflow.
The observed and expected dimuon invariant mass distribution in the two-jet $b$-veto SR. The last bin contains the overflow.
The observed and expected dielectron invariant mass distribution in the four jet b-veto SR. The last bin contains the overflow.
The observed and expected dimuon invariant mass distribution in the four-jet $b$-veto SR. The last bin contains the overflow.
The observed and expected dielectron invariant mass distribution in the two-jet $b$-tag SR. The last bin contains the overflow.
The observed and expected dimuon invariant mass distribution in two-jet $b$-tag SR. The last bin contains the overflow.
The observed and expected dielectron invariant mass distribution in the four-jet $b$-tag SR. The last bin contains the overflow.
The observed and expected dimuon invariant mass distribution in the four-jet $b$-tag SR. The last bin contains the overflow.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in SR-Z.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in SR-Z.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in SR-Z.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in SR-Z.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons in the two-jet $b$-veto SR.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons in the two-jet $b$-veto SR.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons in the four-jet $b$-veto SR.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons in the four-jet $b$-veto SR.
Number of generated events in the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons.
Production cross-section in the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons.
Number of generated events in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.
Production cross-section in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.
Number of generated events in the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.
Production cross-section in the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.
Number of generated events in the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.
Production cross-section in the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.
Total experimental uncertainty [%] for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons.
Total experimental uncertainty [%] for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.
Total experimental uncertainty for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.
Signal acceptance for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in the combined electron and muon SR-Z.
Signal acceptance for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in the combined electron and muon SR-Z.
Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in the dielectron SR-Z.
Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in the dielectron SR-Z.
Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in the dimuon SR-Z.
Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in the dimuon SR-Z.
Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$ in the electron and muon combined SR-Z.
Signal efficiency for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$ in the the electron and muon combined SR-Z.
Signal acceptance for the two-step first- and second-generation squarks simplified model with sleptons in the two-jet $b$-veto SR.
Signal acceptance for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons in the four-jet $b$-veto SR.
Signal efficiency for the two-step first- and second-generation squarks simplified model with sleptons in the two-jet $b$-veto SR.
Signal efficiency for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons in the four-jet $b$-veto SR.
Upper limits on the signal cross-section at 95% CL for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.
Observed CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.
Expected CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=1.5$.
Upper limits on the signal cross-section at 95% CL for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.
Observed CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.
Expected CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the GGM model with $\tan(\beta)=30$.
Upper limits on the signal stength at 95% CL for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons. The excluded signal strength is defined as the ratio of the observed excluded production cross section to the expected production cross section calculated at NLO+NLL.
Upper limits on the signal stength at 95% CL for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons. The excluded signal strength is defined as the ratio of the observed excluded production cross section to the expected production cross section calculated at NLO+NLL.
Observed CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.
Expected CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.
Observed CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons.
Expected CL$_{\text{S}}$ for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons.
Cutflow table for three benchmark signal points in SR-Z for the $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ channels separately. The three signal points are taken from the $\tan\beta = 1.5$ grid. 100000 events were generated for each of these points. Shown here are both the unweighted number of events and the number of events normalised to 20.3 fb$^{-1}$. The total experimental systematic uncertainty on the signal yields is indicated at the last cut, along with the corresponding observed and expected $CL_S$ values.
Cutflow table for three benchmark signal points in the two jet b-veto SR of the off-$Z$ search for the $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ channels separately. Shown here are both the unweighted number of events and the number of events normalised to 20.3$^{-1}$. Except for the last two rows indicating the dilepton mass requirements, quoted event yields include all requirements from the top of the table down to the given row.
Cutflow table for three benchmark signal points in the four jet b-veto SR of the off-$Z$ search for the $ee$ and $\mu\mu$ channels separately. Shown here are both the unweighted number of events and the number of events normalised to 20.3 fb$^{-1}$. Except for the last two rows indicating the dilepton mass requirements, quoted event yields include all requirements from the top of the table down to the given row.
The results of a search for supersymmetry in final states containing at least one isolated lepton (electron or muon), jets and large missing transverse momentum with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) are reported. The search is based on proton-proton collision data at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV collected in 2012, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 20 fb$^{-1}$. No significant excess above the Standard Model expectation is observed. Limits are set on the parameters of a minimal universal extra dimensions model, excluding a compactification radius of $1/R_c=950$ GeV for a cut-off scale times radius ($\Lambda R_c$) of approximately 30, as well as on sparticle masses for various supersymmetric models. Depending on the model, the search excludes gluino masses up to 1.32 TeV and squark masses up to 840 GeV.
Observed and expected $E_T^{miss}/m_{eff}$ distribution in soft single-lepton 3-jet signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.
Observed and expected $E_T^{miss}/m_{eff}$ distribution in soft single-lepton 5-jet signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.
Observed and expected $E_T^{miss}/m_{eff}$ distribution in soft single-lepton 3-jet inclusive signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.
Observed and expected $E_T^{miss}$ distribution in soft dimuon signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.
Observed and expected $m_{eff}^{incl}$ distribution in hard single-lepton 3-jet signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.
Observed and expected $m_{eff}^{incl}$ distribution for hard single-lepton 5-jet signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.
Observed and expected $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution for hard single-lepton 6-jet signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.
Observed and expected $M_{R}'$ distribution for hard same-flavour dilepton low-multiplicity signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.
Observed and expected $M_{R}'$ distribution for hard same-flavour dilepton 3-jet signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.
Observed and expected $M_{R}'$ distribution for hard opposite-flavour dilepton low-multiplicity signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.
Observed and expected $M_{R}'$ distribution for hard opposite-flavour dilepton 3-jet opposite-flavour signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the mSUGRA/CMSSM model with $\tan\beta=30$, $A_{0}=-2m_{0}$ and $\mu > 0$.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the mSUGRA/CMSSM model with $\tan\beta=30$, $A_{0}=-2m_{0}$ and $\mu > 0$.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the bRPV MSUGRA/CMSSM model.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the bRPV MSUGRA/CMSSM model.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the natural gauge mediation with a stau NLSP model (nGM).
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the natural gauge mediation with a stau NLSP model (nGM).
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the non-universal higgs masses with gaugino mediation model (NUHMG).
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the non-universal higgs masses with gaugino mediation model (NUHMG).
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the minimal UED model from the combination of the hard dilepton and soft dilepton analyses.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the minimal UED model from the combination of the hard dilepton and soft dilepton analyses.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the minimal UED model from the hard dilepton analysis.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the minimal UED model from the hard dilepton analysis.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the minimal UED model from the soft dilepton analysis.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the minimal UED model from the soft dilepton analysis.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the simplified model with gluino-mediated top squark production where the top squark is assumed to decay exclusively via $\tilde{t} \rightarrow c \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the simplified model with gluino-mediated top squark production, where the top squark is assumed to decay exclusively via $\tilde{t} \rightarrow c \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the simplified model with gluino-mediated top squark production where the gluinos are assumed to decay exclusively through a virtual top squark, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow tt+\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the simplified model with gluino-mediated top squark production where the gluinos are assumed to decay exclusively through a virtual top squark, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow tt+\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the soft single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the soft single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the hard single-lepton analysis for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the hard single-lepton analysis for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the soft single-lepton analysis for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the soft single-lepton analysis for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the hard single-lepton analysis for the case in which x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the hard single-lepton analysis for the case in which x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the soft single-lepton analysis for the case in which x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the soft single-lepton analysis for the case in which x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the combination of soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the soft single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the soft single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons from the combination of the hard dilepton and hard single-lepton analyses.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons from the combination of the hard dilepton and hard single-lepton analyses.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons from the hard single-lepton analysis.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons from the hard single-lepton analysis.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons from the hard dilepton analysis.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons from the hard dilepton analysis.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons from the hard dilepton analysis.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons from the hard dilepton analysis.
Observed 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model without sleptons from the hard single-lepton analysis.
Expected 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model without sleptons from the hard single-lepton analysis.
Number of generated events in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Production cross-section in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Number of generated events in the the first- and second-generation squark simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV. squark decaying to quark neutralino1 with varying x.
Production cross-section in the the first- and second-generation squark simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Number of generated evens in the minimal UED model.
Production cross-section in the minimal UED model in pb.
Number of generated events in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.
Production cross-section in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.
Acceptance for soft single-lepton 3-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Efficiency for soft single-lepton 3-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Acceptance for soft single-lepton 5-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Efficiency for soft single-lepton 5-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Acceptance for soft single-lepton 3-jet inclusive signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Efficiency for the soft single-lepton 3-jet inclusive signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Expected CLs from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Expected CLs from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV. The chargino mass is parameterised using x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)).
Observed CLs from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Observed CLs from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV. The chargino mass is parameterised using x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)).
Acceptance for soft dimuon signal region in the minimal UED model (mUED).
Efficiency for soft dimuon signal region in minimal UED model (mUED).
Acceptance for hard dilepton 3-jet opposite-flavour signal region in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.
Efficiency for hard dilepton 3jet opposite-flavour signal region in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.
Acceptance for hard dilepton 3-jet same-flavour signal region in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.
Efficiency for hard dilepton 3-jet same-flavour signal region in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.
Acceptance for hard dilepton low-multiplicity opposite-flavour signal region in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.
Efficiency for hard dilepton low-multiplicity opposite-flavour signal region in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.
Acceptance for hard dilepton low-multiplicity same-flavour signal region in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.
Efficiency for hard dilepton low-multiplicity same-flavour signal region in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.
Best expected signal region in the minimal UED model (mUED).
Expected CLs from hard dilepton analysis in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.
Observed CLs from the hard dilepton analysis in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.
Expected CLs from the combination of the soft dimuon and hard dilepton analyses in the minimal UED model (mUED).
Observed CLs from the combination of the soft dimuon and hard dilepton analyses in the minimal UED model (mUED).
Acceptance for hard single-lepton 3-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Efficiency for hard single-lepton 3-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Acceptance for hard single-lepton 5-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Efficiency for hard single-lepton 5-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Acceptance for hard single-lepton 6-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Efficiency for hard single-lepton 6-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Acceptance for hard single-lepton 3-jet signal region in the first- and second-generation squark simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Efficiency for hard single-lepton 3-jet signal region in the first- and second-generation squark simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Acceptance for hard single-lepton 5-jet signal region in the first- and second-generation squark simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Efficiency for hard single-lepton 5-jet signal region in the first- and second-generation squark simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Acceptance for hard single-lepton 6-jet signal region in the first- and second-generation squark simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Efficiency for hard single-lepton 6-jet signal region in the first- and second-generation squark simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Observed 95% upper limit on the visible cross-section in the gluino simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.
Observed 95% upper limit on the visible cross-section in the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.
Observed 95% upper limit on the visible cross-section in the first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons from the hard dilepton analysis.
Observed 95% upper limit on the visible cross-section in the minimal UED model (mUED) from the combination of the soft dimuon and hard dilepton analyses.
Results from a search for supersymmetry in events with four or more leptons including electrons, muons and taus are presented. The analysis uses a data sample corresponding to 20.3 $fb^{-1}$ of proton--proton collisions delivered by the Large Hadron Collider at $\sqrt{s}$ = 8 TeV and recorded by the ATLAS detector. Signal regions are designed to target supersymmetric scenarios that can be either enriched in or depleted of events involving the production of a $Z$ boson. No significant deviations are observed in data from Standard Model predictions and results are used to set upper limits on the event yields from processes beyond the Standard Model. Exclusion limits at the 95% confidence level on the masses of relevant supersymmetric particles are obtained. In R-parity-violating simplified models with decays of the lightest supersymmetric particle to electrons and muons, limits of 1350 GeV and 750 GeV are placed on gluino and chargino masses, respectively. In R-parity-conserving simplified models with heavy neutralinos decaying to a massless lightest supersymmetric particle, heavy neutralino masses up to 620 GeV are excluded. Limits are also placed on other supersymmetric scenarios.
The ETmiss distribution in VR0Z.
The effective mass distribution in VR0Z.
The ETmiss distribution in VR2Z.
The effective mass distribution in VR2Z.
The ETmiss distribution in SR0noZa.
The effective mass distribution in SR0noZa.
The ETmiss distribution in SR1noZa.
The effective mass distribution in SR1noZa.
The ETmiss distribution in SR2noZa.
The effective mass distribution in SR2noZa.
The ETmiss distribution in SR0noZb.
The effective mass distribution in SR0noZb.
The ETmiss distribution in SR1noZb.
The effective mass distribution in SR1noZb.
The ETmiss distribution in SR2noZb.
The effective mass distribution in SR2noZb.
The ETmiss distribution in SR0Z.
The effective mass distribution in SR0Z.
The ETmiss distribution in SR1Z.
The effective mass distribution in SR1Z.
The ETmiss distribution in SR2Z.
The effective mass distribution in SR2Z.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV chargino NLSP model with lambda_121 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV chargino NLSP model with lambda_121 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV chargino NLSP model with lambda_122 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV chargino NLSP model with lambda_122 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV chargino NLSP model with lambda_133 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV chargino NLSP model with lambda_133 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV chargino NLSP model with lambda_233 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV chargino NLSP model with lambda_233 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV gluino NLSP model with lambda_121 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV gluino NLSP model with lambda_121 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV gluino NLSP model with lambda_122 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV gluino NLSP model with lambda_122 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV gluino NLSP model with lambda_133 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV gluino NLSP model with lambda_133 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV gluino NLSP model with lambda_233 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV gluino NLSP model with lambda_233 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV Lslepton NLSP model with lambda_121 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV Lslepton NLSP model with lambda_121 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV Lslepton NLSP model with lambda_122 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV Lslepton NLSP model with lambda_122 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV Lslepton NLSP model with lambda_133 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV Lslepton NLSP model with lambda_133 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV Lslepton NLSP model with lambda_233 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV Lslepton NLSP model with lambda_233 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV Rslepton NLSP model with lambda_121 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV Rslepton NLSP model with lambda_121 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV Rslepton NLSP model with lambda_122 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV Rslepton NLSP model with lambda_122 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV Rslepton NLSP model with lambda_133 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV Rslepton NLSP model with lambda_133 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV Rslepton NLSP model with lambda_233 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV Rslepton NLSP model with lambda_233 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV sneutrino NLSP model with lambda_121 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV sneutrino NLSP model with lambda_121 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV sneutrino NLSP model with lambda_122 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV sneutrino NLSP model with lambda_122 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV sneutrino NLSP model with lambda_133 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV sneutrino NLSP model with lambda_133 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV sneutrino NLSP model with lambda_233 != 0.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the RPV sneutrino NLSP model with lambda_233 != 0.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the R-slepton RPC model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the R-slepton RPC model.
Observed and expected 95% CL cross-section upper limits for the Stau RPC model, together with the theoretically predicted cross-section.
Observed and expected 95% CL cross-section upper limits for the Z RPC model, together with the theoretically predicted cross-section.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the GGM tan beta = 1.5 model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the GGM tan beta = 1.5 model.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for the GGM tan beta = 30 model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for the GGM tan beta = 30 model.
Observed 95% CL cross-section upper limit for the RPV chargino NLSP models with lambda_121 != 0 and lambda_122 != 0, and the selection of Z-veto signal regions used to set limits in these models. The combination of regions used is ordered by the minimum number of hadronic taus required. For example, ``bba' means that the regions SR0noZb, SR1noZb and SR2noZa were used, in addition to the three Z-rich regions (SR0-2Z).
Observed 95% CL cross-section upper limit for the RPV chargino NLSP models with lambda_133 != 0 and lambda_233 != 0, and the selection of Z-veto signal regions used to set limits in these models. The combination of regions used is ordered by the minimum number of hadronic taus required. For example, ``bba' means that the regions SR0noZb, SR1noZb and SR2noZa were used, in addition to the three Z-rich regions (SR0-2Z).
Observed 95% CL cross-section upper limit for the RPV gluino NLSP models with lambda_121 != 0 and lambda_122 != 0, and the selection of Z-veto signal regions used to set limits in these models. The combination of regions used is ordered by the minimum number of hadronic taus required. For example, ``bba' means that the regions SR0noZb, SR1noZb and SR2noZa were used, in addition to the three Z-rich regions (SR0-2Z).
Observed 95% CL cross-section upper limit for the RPV gluino NLSP models with lambda_133 != 0 and lambda_233 != 0, and the selection of Z-veto signal regions used to set limits in these models. The combination of regions used is ordered by the minimum number of hadronic taus required. For example, ``bba' means that the regions SR0noZb, SR1noZb and SR2noZa were used, in addition to the three Z-rich regions (SR0-2Z).
Performance of the SR0noZa selection in the R-slepton RPC model: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency; total experimental systematic uncertainty, not including Monte Carlo statistics; observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the SR0noZb selection in the RPV chargino NLSP model with lambda_121 != 0: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency; total experimental systematic uncertainty, not including Monte Carlo statistics; observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the SR1noZa selection in the RPV sneutrino NLSP model with lambda_233 != 0: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency; total experimental systematic uncertainty, not including Monte Carlo statistics; observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the SR1noZb selection in the RPV gluino NLSP model with lambda_133 != 0: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency; total experimental systematic uncertainty, not including Monte Carlo statistics; observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the SR2noZa selection in the RPV sneutrino NLSP model with lambda_233 != 0: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency; total experimental systematic uncertainty, not including Monte Carlo statistics; observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the SR2noZb selection in the RPV gluino NLSP model with lambda_133 != 0: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency; total experimental systematic uncertainty, not including Monte Carlo statistics; observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Performance of the SR0Z selection in the GGM tan beta = 30 model: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency; total experimental systematic uncertainty, not including Monte Carlo statistics; observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.
Cut flows for a representative selection of SUSY signal points in the Z-veto signal regions. In each case, m2 and m1 refer to the axes of the plots in Sec. XI, where m2 is the larger of the two masses. The number of events expected for a luminosity of 20.3 fb-1 is quoted at each step of the selection. The preselection requires four baseline leptons, at least two of which are light leptons; the signal lepton selection is made at the ``Lepton Multiplicity' stage. ``Event Cleaning' refers to the selection criteria applied to remove non-collision backgrounds and detector noise.
Cut flows for a representative selection of SUSY signal points in the Z-rich signal regions. In each case, m2 and m1 refer to the axes of the plots in Sec. XI, where m2 is the larger of the two masses (or the value of mu in the case of GGM models). The number of events expected for a luminosity of 20.3 fb-1 is quoted at each step of the selection. The preselection requires four baseline leptons, at least two of which are light leptons; the signal lepton selection is made at the ``Lepton Multiplicity' stage. ``Event Cleaning' refers to the selection criteria applied to remove non-collision backgrounds and detector noise.
Cut flows by lepton channel for a representative selection of SUSY signal points in the SR0noZa signal region. In each case, m2 and m1 refer to the axes of the plots in Sec. XI, where m2 is the larger of the two masses. The number of events expected for a luminosity of 20.3 fb-1 is quoted at each step of the selection. The preselection requires four baseline leptons, at least two of which are light leptons; the signal lepton selection is made at the ``Lepton Multiplicity' stage. ``Event Cleaning' refers to the selection criteria applied to remove non-collision backgrounds and detector noise. The RPC R-slepton model is used, with (m2,m1) = (450,300) GeV.
Cut flows by lepton channel for a representative selection of SUSY signal points in the SR1noZb signal region. In each case, m2 and m1 refer to the axes of the plots in Sec. XI, where m2 is the larger of the two masses. The number of events expected for a luminosity of 20.3 fb-1 is quoted at each step of the selection. The preselection requires four baseline leptons, at least two of which are light leptons; the signal lepton selection is made at the ``Lepton Multiplicity' stage. ``Event Cleaning' refers to the selection criteria applied to remove non-collision backgrounds and detector noise. The RPV gluino NLSP model is used, with lambda_133 != 0 and (m2,m1) = (800,400) GeV.
Cut flows by lepton channel for a representative selection of SUSY signal points in the SR0Z signal region. In each case, m2 and m1 refer to the axes of the plots in Sec. XI, where m2 is the value of mu. The number of events expected for a luminosity of 20.3 fb-1 is quoted at each step of the selection. The preselection requires four baseline leptons, at least two of which are light leptons; the signal lepton selection is made at the ``Lepton Multiplicity' stage. ``Event Cleaning' refers to the selection criteria applied to remove non-collision backgrounds and detector noise. The GGM tan beta = 30 model is used, with (m2,m1) = (200,1000) GeV.
A search for new phenomena in final states containing an $e^+e^-$ or $\mu^+\mu^-$ pair, jets, and large missing transverse momentum is presented. This analysis makes use of proton--proton collision data with an integrated luminosity of $36.1 \; \mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, collected during 2015 and 2016 at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. The search targets the pair production of supersymmetric coloured particles (squarks or gluinos) and their decays into final states containing an $e^+e^-$ or $\mu^+\mu^-$ pair and the lightest neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_1^0$) via one of two next-to-lightest neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_2^0$) decay mechanisms: $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_1^0$, where the $Z$ boson decays leptonically leading to a peak in the dilepton invariant mass distribution around the $Z$ boson mass; and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0 \rightarrow \ell^+\ell^- \tilde{\chi}_1^0$ with no intermediate $\ell^+\ell^-$ resonance, yielding a kinematic endpoint in the dilepton invariant mass spectrum. The data are found to be consistent with the Standard Model expectation. Results are interpreted using simplified models, and exclude gluinos and squarks with masses as large as 1.85 TeV and 1.3 TeV at 95% confidence level, respectively.
A search is presented for particles that decay producing a large jet multiplicity and invisible particles. The event selection applies a veto on the presence of isolated electrons or muons and additional requirements on the number of b-tagged jets and the scalar sum of masses of large-radius jets. Having explored the full ATLAS 2015-2016 dataset of LHC proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13~\mathrm{TeV}$, which corresponds to 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity, no evidence is found for physics beyond the Standard Model. The results are interpreted in the context of simplified models inspired by R-parity-conserving and R-parity-violating supersymmetry, where gluinos are pair-produced. More generic models within the phenomenological minimal supersymmetric Standard Model are also considered.
Post-fit yields for each signal region in the multijets analysis. Summary of all 27 signal regions (post-fit).
Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.
Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.
Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.
Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.
Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.
Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.
Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.
Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.
Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.
Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid.
Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.
Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.
Observed 95% CL limit for the RPV grid.
Observed 95% CL limit for the RPV grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.
Observed 95% CL limit for the RPV grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.
Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid.
Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.
Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-7j80-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-7j80-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-7j80-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j80-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j80-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j80-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with no b-jet requirement and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with no b-jet requirement and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 340 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 500 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.
The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for 2Step signal points for the best-expected signal region.
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for RPV signal points for the best-expected signal region.
95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for gtt off-shell signal points for the best-expected signal region.
Performance of the SR-8j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-10j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-11j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-11j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-11j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-7j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-7j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-7j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-8j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
Performance of the SR-9j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.
The results of a search for squarks and gluinos in final states with an isolated electron or muon, multiple jets and large missing transverse momentum using proton--proton collision data at a center-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV are presented. The dataset used was recorded during 2015 and 2016 by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 $fb^{-1}$. No significant excess beyond the expected background is found. Exclusion limits at 95% confidence level are set in a number of supersymmetric scenarios, reaching masses up to 2.1 TeV for gluino pair production and up to 1.25 TeV for squark pair production.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino one-step x = 1/2 model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino one-step x = 1/2 model.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino one-step variable-x model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino one-step variable-x model.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-step x = 1/2 model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-step x = 1/2 model.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-step variable-x model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the squark one-step variable-x model.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino two-step model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for the gluino two-step model.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours for pMSSM model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours for pMSSM model.
$m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in 2J b-veto signal regions after fit. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in 4J low-x b-veto signal regions after fit. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in 4J high-x b-veto signal regions after fit. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in 6J b-veto signal regions after fit. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in 2J b-tag signal regions after fit. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in 4J low-x b-tag signal regions after fit. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in 4J high-x b-tag signal regions after fit. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in 6J b-tag signal regions after fit. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in 9J signal regions after fit. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution for events satisfying all the 2J b-veto signal region selections but for the one on the variable shown in the figure. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ distribution for events satisfying all the 2J b-veto signal region selections but for the one on the variable shown in the figure. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution for events satisfying all the 2J b-tag signal region selections but for the one on the variable shown in the figure. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ distribution for events satisfying all the 2J b-tag signal region selections but for the one on the variable shown in the figure. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution for events satisfying all the 4J low-x b-veto signal region selections but for the one on the variable shown in the figure. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ distribution for events satisfying all the 4J low-x b-veto signal region selections but for the one on the variable shown in the figure. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution for events satisfying all the 4J low-x b-tag signal region selections but for the one on the variable shown in the figure. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ distribution for events satisfying all the 4J low-x b-tag signal region selections but for the one on the variable shown in the figure. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution for events satisfying all the 4J high-x b-veto signal region selections but for the one on the variable shown in the figure. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ distribution for events satisfying all the 4J high-x b-veto signal region selections but for the one on the variable shown in the figure. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution for events satisfying all the 4J high-x b-tag signal region selections but for the one on the variable shown in the figure. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ distribution for events satisfying all the 4J high-x b-tag signal region selections but for the one on the variable shown in the figure. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution for events satisfying all the 6J b-veto signal region selections but for the one on the variable shown in the figure. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ distribution for events satisfying all the 6J b-veto signal region selections but for the one on the variable shown in the figure. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution for events satisfying all the 6J b-tag signal region selections but for the one on the variable shown in the figure. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$E_{\mathrm T}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ distribution for events satisfying all the 6J b-tag signal region selections but for the one on the variable shown in the figure. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}$ distribution for events satisfying all the 9J signal region selections but for the one on the variable shown in the figure. The uncertainty bands plotted include all statistical and systematic uncertainties. The dashed lines stand for the benchmark signal samples.
Observed upper limits on the signal cross-section for gluino one-step x = 1/2 model.
Observed upper limits on the signal cross-section for gluino one-step variable-x model.
Observed upper limits on the signal cross-section for squark one-step x = 1/2 model.
Observed upper limits on the signal cross-section for squark one-step variable-x model.
Observed upper limits on the signal cross-section for gluino two-step model.
Observed upper limits on the signal cross-section for pMSSM model.
Acceptance in 2J discovery signal region for gluino one-step x = 1/2 model.
Acceptance in 2J discovery signal region for squark one-step x = 1/2 model.
Acceptance in 4J low-x discovery signal region for gluino one-step variable-x model.
Acceptance in 4J low-x discovery signal region for squark one-step variable-x model.
Acceptance in 4J high-x discovery signal region for gluino one-step variable-x model.
Acceptance in 4J high-x discovery signal region for squark one-step variable-x model.
Acceptance in 6J discovery signal region for gluino one-step x = 1/2 model.
Acceptance in 6J discovery signal region for squark one-step x = 1/2 model.
Acceptance in 9J discovery signal region for pMSSM model.
Acceptance in 9J discovery signal region for gluino two-step model.
Efficiency in 2J discovery signal region for gluino one-step x = 1/2 model.
Efficiency in 2J discovery signal region for squark one-step x = 1/2 model.
Efficiency in 4J low-x discovery signal region for gluino one-step variable-x model.
Efficiency in 4J low-x discovery signal region for squark one-step variable-x model.
Efficiency in 4J high-x discovery signal region for gluino one-step variable-x model.
Efficiency in 4J high-x discovery signal region for squark one-step variable-x model.
Efficiency in 6J discovery signal region for gluino one-step x = 1/2 model.
Efficiency in 6J discovery signal region for squark one-step x = 1/2 model.
Efficiency in 9J discovery signal region for pMSSM model.
Efficiency in 9J discovery signal region for gluino two-step model.
Cutflow table for the 2J discovery signal region with a representative target signal model. The weighted numbers are normalized to 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ and rounded to the statistical error. The selection called "Filter" is introduced for initial data reduction. It selects events with at least one soft electron or muon ($3.5 < p_\mathrm{T} < 25$ GeV for muons and $4.5 < p_\mathrm{T} < 25$ GeV for electrons) in which an $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ trigger has fired or events with at least one hard electron or muon ($p_\mathrm{T} >$25 GeV).
Cutflow table for the 4J high-x discovery signal region with a representative target signal model. The weighted numbers are normalized to 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ and rounded to the statistical error. The selection called "Filter" is introduced for initial data reduction. It selects events with at least one soft electron or muon ($3.5 < p_\mathrm{T} < 25$ GeV for muons and $4.5 < p_\mathrm{T} < 25$ GeV for electrons) in which an $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ trigger has fired or events with at least one hard electron or muon ($p_\mathrm{T} >$25 GeV).
Cutflow table for the 4J low-x discovery signal region (targetting gluino decays) with a representative target signal model. The weighted numbers are normalized to 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ and rounded to the statistical error. The selection called "Filter" is introduced for initial data reduction. It selects events with at least one soft electron or muon ($3.5 < p_\mathrm{T} < 25$ GeV for muons and $4.5 < p_\mathrm{T} < 25$ GeV for electrons) in which an $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ trigger has fired or events with at least one hard electron or muon ($p_\mathrm{T} >$25 GeV).
Cutflow table for the 4J low-x discovery signal region (targetting squark decays) with a representative target signal model. The weighted numbers are normalized to 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ and rounded to the statistical error. The selection called "Filter" is introduced for initial data reduction. It selects events with at least one soft electron or muon ($3.5 < p_\mathrm{T} < 25$ GeV for muons and $4.5 < p_\mathrm{T} < 25$ GeV for electrons) in which an $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ trigger has fired or events with at least one hard electron or muon ($p_\mathrm{T} >$25 GeV).
Cutflow table for the 6J discovery signal region (targetting gluino decays) with a representative target signal model. The weighted numbers are normalized to 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ and rounded to the statistical error. The selection called "Filter" is introduced for initial data reduction. It selects events with at least one soft electron or muon ($3.5 < p_\mathrm{T} < 25$ GeV for muons and $4.5 < p_\mathrm{T} < 25$ GeV for electrons) in which an $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ trigger has fired or events with at least one hard electron or muon ($p_\mathrm{T} >$25 GeV).
Cutflow table for the 6J discovery signal region (targetting squark decays) with a representative target signal model. The weighted numbers are normalized to 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ and rounded to the statistical error. The selection called "Filter" is introduced for initial data reduction. It selects events with at least one soft electron or muon ($3.5 < p_\mathrm{T} < 25$ GeV for muons and $4.5 < p_\mathrm{T} < 25$ GeV for electrons) in which an $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ trigger has fired or events with at least one hard electron or muon ($p_\mathrm{T} >$25 GeV).
Cutflow table for the 9J discovery signal region with a representative target signal model. The weighted numbers are normalized to 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ and rounded to the statistical error. The selection called "Filter" is introduced for initial data reduction. It selects events with at least one soft electron or muon ($3.5 < p_\mathrm{T} < 25$ GeV for muons and $4.5 < p_\mathrm{T} < 25$ GeV for electrons) in which an $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ trigger has fired or events with at least one hard electron or muon ($p_\mathrm{T} >$25 GeV).
A search for supersymmetry involving the pair production of gluinos decaying via third-generation squarks into the lightest neutralino ($\displaystyle\tilde\chi^0_1$) is reported. It uses LHC proton--proton collision data at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ collected with the ATLAS detector in 2015 and 2016. The search is performed in events containing large missing transverse momentum and several energetic jets, at least three of which must be identified as originating from $b$-quarks. To increase the sensitivity, the sample is divided into subsamples based on the presence or absence of electrons or muons. No excess is found above the predicted background. For $\displaystyle\tilde\chi^0_1$ masses below approximately 300 GeV, gluino masses of less than 1.97 (1.92) TeV are excluded at 95% confidence level in simplified models involving the pair production of gluinos that decay via top (bottom) squarks. An interpretation of the limits in terms of the branching ratios of the gluinos into third-generation squarks is also provided. These results improve upon the exclusion limits obtained with the 3.2 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2015.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.8 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.8 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.8 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.8 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.8 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.8 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 2.0 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 2.0 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 2.0 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 2.0 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 2.0 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 2.0 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 600 GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 600 GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 600 GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 600 GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 600 GeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 600 GeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 TeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 TeV.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 TeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 TeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 TeV.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gluino mass = 1.9 TeV, Neutralino mass = 1 TeV.
Distribution of ETMISS for SR-Gbb-VC.
Distribution of ETMISS for SR-Gbb-VC.
Distribution of ETMISS for SR-Gbb-VC.
Distribution of ETMISS for SR-Gtt-1l-B.
Distribution of ETMISS for SR-Gtt-1l-B.
Distribution of ETMISS for SR-Gtt-1l-B.
Distribution of ETMISS for SR-1L-II.
Distribution of ETMISS for SR-1L-II.
Distribution of ETMISS for SR-1L-II.
Distribution of ETMISS for SR-0L-HI.
Distribution of ETMISS for SR-0L-HI.
Distribution of ETMISS for SR-0L-HI.
Distribution of ETMISS for SR-0L-HH.
Distribution of ETMISS for SR-0L-HH.
Distribution of ETMISS for SR-0L-HH.
Acceptances for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
Acceptances for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
Acceptances for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
Acceptances for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-M.
Acceptances for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-M.
Acceptances for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-M.
Acceptances for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
Acceptances for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
Acceptances for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
Acceptances for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-VC.
Acceptances for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-VC.
Acceptances for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-VC.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-B.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-B.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-B.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-M.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-M.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-M.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-B.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-B.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-B.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-M.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-M.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-M.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-C.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-C.
Acceptances for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-C.
Experimental efficiencies for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
Experimental efficiencies for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
Experimental efficiencies for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
Experimental efficiencies for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-M.
Experimental efficiencies for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-M.
Experimental efficiencies for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-M.
Experimental efficiencies for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
Experimental efficiencies for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
Experimental efficiencies for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
Experimental efficiencies for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-VC.
Experimental efficiencies for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-VC.
Experimental efficiencies for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-VC.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-B.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-B.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-B.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-M.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-M.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-M.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-B.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-B.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-B.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-M.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-M.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-M.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
Experimental efficiencies for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-M.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-M.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-M.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-VC.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-VC.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gbb model in SR-Gbb-VC.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-M.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-M.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-M.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-B.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-M.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-M.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-M.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-C.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-C.
95% CL upper limit on the cross-section times branching ratio (in fb) for the Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-C.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-B.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-M.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-M.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-M.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-M.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-M.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-M.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-C.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-VC.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-VC.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-VC.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-VC.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-VC.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gbb model in SR-Gbb-VC.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-B.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-B.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-B.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-B.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-B.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-B.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-M.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-M.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-M.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-M.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-M.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-M.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-0l-C.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-B.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-B.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-B.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-B.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-B.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-B.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-M.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-M.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-M.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-M.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-M.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-M.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-C.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-C.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-C.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-C.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-C.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contour for Gtt model in SR-Gtt-1l-C.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gbb-0L-B selection for a Gbb signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1400) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gbb-0L-B selection for a Gbb signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1400) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gbb-0L-B selection for a Gbb signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1400) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gbb-0L-M selection for a Gbb signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1400) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gbb-0L-M selection for a Gbb signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1400) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gbb-0L-M selection for a Gbb signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1400) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gbb-0L-C selection for a Gbb signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1400) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gbb-0L-C selection for a Gbb signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1400) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gbb-0L-C selection for a Gbb signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1400) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gbb-0L-VC selection for a Gbb signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1400) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gbb-0L-VC selection for a Gbb signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1400) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gbb-0L-VC selection for a Gbb signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1400) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-1L-B selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-1L-B selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-1L-B selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-1L-M selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-1L-M selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-1L-M selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-1L-C selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-1L-C selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-1L-C selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-0L-B selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-0L-B selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-0L-B selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-0L-M selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-0L-M selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-0L-M selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-0L-C selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-0L-C selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
Expected number of signal events after each step of the Gtt-0L-C selection for a Gtt signal point (MGLUON,MNEUTRALINO) = (1900,1) GeV.
A search for supersymmetry in events with large missing transverse momentum, jets, and at least one hadronically decaying $\tau$-lepton is presented. Two exclusive final states with either exactly one or at least two $\tau$-leptons are considered. The analysis is based on proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ delivered by the Large Hadron Collider and recorded by the ATLAS detector in 2015 and 2016. No significant excess is observed over the Standard Model expectation. At 95% confidence level, model-independent upper limits on the cross section are set and exclusion limits are provided for two signal scenarios: a simplified model of gluino pair production with $\tau$-rich cascade decays, and a model with gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking (GMSB). In the simplified model, gluino masses up to 2000 GeV are excluded for low values of the mass of the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP), while LSP masses up to 1000 GeV are excluded for gluino masses around 1400 GeV. In the GMSB model, values of the supersymmetry-breaking scale are excluded below 110 TeV for all values of $\tan\beta$ in the range $2 \leq \tan\beta \leq 60$, and below 120 TeV for $\tan\beta>30$.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR eff.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR eff.
2$\tau$ multibin SR eff.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR eff.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
1$\tau$ MediumMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ Compressed SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ HighMass SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ multibin SR acceptance.
2$\tau$ GMSB SR acceptance.
Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $1\tau$ medium-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ compressed SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ high-mass SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ multibin SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Cutflow table of the $2\tau$ GMSB SR for the four signal benchmark scenarios of low, medium, and high mass-splitting in the simplified model as well as the GMSB model.
Best performing fit setups entering the final combination as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass. 'S' marks the simultaneous fit of the four simplified model single-bin SRs, 'M' denotes the simultaneous fit of the two $1\tau$ SRs and the $2\tau$ multibin SR.
Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.
Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of tanBeta and the SUSY-breaking mass scale Lambda.
Observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of tanBeta and SUSY breaking mass scale Lambda.
Observed upper limits on the production cross section at 95% CL in pb as a function of the LSP mass and the gluino mass.
Yields of the expected background from the SM in the bins of the multibin SR of the $2\tau$ channel with all bins being simultaneously used to constrain the background prediction. Expectation is given with the scalings computed in the combined fit applied. Uncertainties are statistial plus systematrics. Only the subsamples contributing the respective region are considered.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the compressed $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the medium-mass $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ in the medium-mass $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ VR of the $1\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the top VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the $W$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_1}$ + $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau_2}$ in the $Z$ VR of the $2\tau$ channel, illustrating the background modeling after the fit. The last bin includes overflow events.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ in the compressed SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\tau}$ > 80 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the medium-mass SR of the $1\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1000 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ in the compressed SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $m_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{sum}}$ > 1600 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the high-mass SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1100 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
mT(tau_1) + mT(tau_2) in the multibin SR of the 2T channel. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
$H_{\mathrm{T}}$ in the GMSB SR of the $2\tau$ channel before application of the $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ > 1900 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Signal predictions corresponding to the simplified model scenarios of low (LM), medium (MM), and high mass-splitting (HM) as well as for the GMSB benchmark are given.
When you search on a word, e.g. 'collisions', we will automatically search across everything we store about a record. But, sometimes you may wish to be more specific. Here we show you how.
Guidance and examples on the query string syntax can be found in the Elasticsearch documentation.
About HEPData Submitting to HEPData HEPData File Formats HEPData Coordinators HEPData Terms of Use HEPData Cookie Policy
Status
Email
Forum
Twitter
GitHub
Copyright ~1975-Present, HEPData | Powered by Invenio, funded by STFC, hosted and originally developed at CERN, supported and further developed at IPPP Durham.