Showing 6 of 166 results
Cross-section measurements of top-quark pair production where the hadronically decaying top quark has transverse momentum greater than $355$ GeV and the other top quark decays into $\ell \nu b$ are presented using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected by the ATLAS experiment during proton-proton collisions at the LHC. The fiducial cross-section at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV is measured to be $\sigma = 1.267 \pm 0.005 \pm 0.053$ pb, where the uncertainties reflect the limited number of data events and the systematic uncertainties, giving a total uncertainty of $4.2\%$. The cross-section is measured differentially as a function of variables characterising the $t\bar{t}$ system and additional radiation in the events. The results are compared with various Monte Carlo generators, including comparisons where the generators are reweighted to match a parton-level calculation at next-to-next-to-leading order. The reweighting improves the agreement between data and theory. The measured distribution of the top-quark transverse momentum is used to set limits on the Wilson coefficients of the dimension-six operators $O_{tG}$ and $O_{tq}^{(8)}$ in the effective field theory framework.
Total cross-section at particle level in the boosted topology. Note that the values shown here are obtained by propagating the individual uncertainties to the measured cross-sections, while the covariance matrices are evaluated using pseudo-experiments as described in the text. The measured cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix of the Absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,2}$ at particle level in the boosted topology. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ = 1. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ = 2. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ $\geq$ 3. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ = 1. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ = 2. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ $\geq$ 3. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ = 1 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ = 1 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ = 2 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ = 1 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ = 2 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ = 2 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ $\geq$ 3 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ = 1 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ $\geq$ 3 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ = 2 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ $\geq$ 3 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ $\geq$ 3 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 355.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 398.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 398.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 496.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 496.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 2000.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 355.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 398.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 398.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 496.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 496.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 2000.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 355.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 398.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 355.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 398.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 398.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 496.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 355.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 398.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 398.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 496.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 398.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 496.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 496.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 355.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 398.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 496.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 398.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 496.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 496.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 496.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 2000.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 355.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 398.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 398.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 496.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 496.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 2000.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 355.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 398.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 398.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 496.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 496.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 2000.0 GeV. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 355.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 398.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 355.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 398.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 398.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 496.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 355.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 398.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 398.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 496.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 398.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 496.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 496.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 355.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 398.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 496.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 398.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 496.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 496.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 2000.0 GeV and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $p_T^{t,h}$ in 496.0 GeV < $p_T^{t,h}$ < 2000.0 GeV at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ = 1. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ = 2. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ $\geq$ 3. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ = 1. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ = 2. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute double-differential cross-section as a function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^j$ $\geq$ 3. The measured differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ = 1 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ = 1 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ = 2 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ = 1 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ = 2 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ = 2 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ $\geq$ 3 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ = 1 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ $\geq$ 3 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ = 2 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Covariance matrix between the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ $\geq$ 3 and the Absolute double-differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ vs $N^j$ in $N^j$ $\geq$ 3 at particle level in the boosted topology, accounting for the statistical uncertainties.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of Inclusive $\sigma$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,h}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t,l}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $y^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(b_{l},t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(t_{h},t_{l})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $H_T^{t\bar{t}+jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $N^j$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,1}$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $m(j_1, t_h)$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_1, t_h)$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{2}, t_{h})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
Statistical covariance matrix between the absolute differential cross-section as function of $p_T^{j,2}$ and the absolute differential cross-section as function of $\frac{\Delta\phi}{\pi}(j_{1}, j_{2})$ at particle level in the boosted topology.
A search for charginos and neutralinos at the Large Hadron Collider is reported using fully hadronic final states and missing transverse momentum. Pair-produced charginos or neutralinos are explored, each decaying into a high-$p_{\text{T}}$ Standard Model weak boson. Fully-hadronic final states are studied to exploit the advantage of the large branching ratio, and the efficient background rejection by identifying the high-$p_{\text{T}}$ bosons using large-radius jets and jet substructure information. An integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data collected by the ATLAS detector at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV is used. No significant excess is found beyond the Standard Model expectation. The 95% confidence level exclusion limits are set on wino or higgsino production with varying assumptions in the decay branching ratios and the type of the lightest supersymmetric particle. A wino (higgsino) mass up to 1060 (900) GeV is excluded when the lightest SUSY particle mass is below 400 (240) GeV and the mass splitting is larger than 400 (450) GeV. The sensitivity to high-mass wino and higgsino is significantly extended compared with the previous LHC searches using the other final states.
Cut flows of some representative signals up to SR-4Q-VV, SR-2B2Q-VZ, and SR-2B2Q-Vh. One signal point from the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1C1-WW, C1N2-WZ, and C1N2-Wh) and $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{G})$ is chosen. The "preliminary event reduction" is a technical selection applied for reducing the sample size, which is fully efficient after the $n_{\textrm{Large}-R~\textrm{jets}}\geq 2$ selection.
The boson-tagging efficiency for jets arising from $W/Z$ bosons decaying into $q\bar{q}$ (signal jets) are shown. The signal jet efficiency of $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging is evaluated using a sample of pre-selected large-$R$ jets ($p_{\textrm{T}}>200~\textrm{GeV}, |\eta|<2.0, m_{J} > 40~\textrm{GeV}$) in the simulated $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model signal events with $\Delta m (\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}},~\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}) \ge 400~\textrm{GeV}$. The jets are matched with generator-level $W/Z$-bosons by $\Delta R<1.0$ which decay into $q\bar{q}$. The efficiency correction factors are applied on the signal efficiency rejection for the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.
The rejection factor (inverse of the efficiency) for jets that have the other origins (background jets) are shown. The background jet rejection factor is calculated using pre-selected large-$R$ jets in the sample of simulated $Z\rightarrow\nu\nu$ + jets events, dominated by initial state radiation (ISR) jets. The efficiency correction factors are applied on the background rejection for the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.
The boson-tagging efficiency for jets arising from $Z/h$ bosons decaying into $b\bar{b}$ (signal jets). The signal jet efficiency of $Z_{bb}$/$h_{bb}$-tagging is evaluated using a sample of pre-selected large-$R$ jets ($p_{\textrm{T}}>200~\textrm{GeV}, |\eta|<2.0, m_{J} > 40~\textrm{GeV}$) in the simulated $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model signal events with $\Delta m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}},~\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}) \ge 400~\textrm{GeV}$. The jets are matched with generator-level $Z/h$-bosons by $\Delta R<1.0$ which decay into $b\bar{b}$. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.
The rejection factor (inverse of the efficiency) for jets that have the other origins (background jets) are shown. The background jet rejection factor is calculated using pre-selected large-$R$ jets in the sample of simulated $Z\rightarrow\nu\nu$ + jets events, dominated by initial state radiation (ISR) jets. As for the $Z_{bb}$/$h_{bb}$-tagging, the rejection is shown as the function of number of $b$- or $c$-quarks contained in the large-$R$ jet within $\Delta R<1.0$. The systematic uncertainty is represented by the hashed bands.
The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.
The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.
The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.
The signal jet efficiency and background jet rejection for the $W_{qq}$-/$Z_{qq}$-tagging working point used in the analysis in comparison with those for the nominal working points (''50% efficiency W/Z tagger'' in ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-017). The definition of the efficiency and rejection follow the caption of Figure 4. Note that the efficiency for the nominal working point is not 50% since they are tuned using jet samples with different pre-selection.
The total post-fit uncertainty in each of the SRs and VRs.
Summary of the observed data and predicted SM background in all SRs. The background prediction in SR-4Q (SR-2B2Q) is obtained by a background-only fit to CR0L-4Q (CR0L-2B2Q). The total systematic uncertainty on the background prediction is shown by the hatched area. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\textrm{GeV}$. The bottom panel shows the statistical significance of the discrepancy between the observed number of events and the SM expectation.
Number of observed data events and the SM backgrounds in the SRs and the CR0L bins. The SM backgrounds are predicted by the background-only fits. Note that the relative uncertainty on the expected yield in the CRs between the reducible backgrounds are identical, given that a common normalization factor is assigned for all of them in the fit. Yields for negligible backgrounds are indicated by "0.0000001±0.0000001" in the table.
Number of observed data events and the post-fit SM background prediction in the VR1L(1Y) bins and the corresponding CR1L(1Y) bins. "-" indicates negligibly small contribution. Note that the relative uncertainty on the expected yield in the CRs between the reducible backgrounds are identical, given that a common normalization factor is assigned for all of them in the fit. Yields for negligible backgrounds are indicated by "0.0000001±0.0000001" in the table.
$m_{\textrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.
Distribution of $m(J_{1})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.
Distribution of $D_2(J_{1})$ in SR-4Q-VV. For $D_2$, the cut value applied for $V_{qq}$-tagging ($D_{2,\text{cut}}$) is subtracted as the off-set so that $D_2-D_{2,\text{cut}}(J)<0$ represents $J$ passing the $D_2$ selection. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.
Distribution of $m(J_{2})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.
Distribution of $D_2(J_{2})$ in SR-4Q-VV. For $D_2$, the cut value applied for $V_{qq}$-tagging ($D_{2,\text{cut}}$) is subtracted as the off-set so that $D_2-D_{2,\text{cut}}(J)<0$ represents $J$ passing the $D_2$ selection. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.
$m_{\textrm{T2}}$ distributions in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.
Distribution of $m(J_{bb})$ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.
Distribution of $m_{\textrm{eff}} $ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.
$m_{\textrm{T2}}$ distributions in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of a few representative signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.
Distribution of $m(J_{bb})$ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.
Distribution of $m_{\textrm{eff}} $ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The post-fit SM background expectation using the background-only fit is shown in a histogram stack. Distributions of relevant signals are overlaid. The bottom panels show the ratio of the observed data to the background prediction. The selection criteria on the variable shown by each plot is removed, while the arrow indicates the cut value to define the region. A few representative signals are overlaid. For the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified model models, the label $(x,y)$ indicates $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}), m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))=(x,y)~\text{GeV}$.
Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.
Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.
Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.
Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.
Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1C1-WW. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.
Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.
Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.
Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.
Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.
Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.
Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-WZ.
Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.
Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.
Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.
Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.
Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.
Exclusion limits for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplifiec model as a function of the produced wino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$) and the bino LSP mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models; C1N2-Wh.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Observed limits for various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$ hypotheses overlaid. The outer and inner bundles correspond to the limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ and $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models respectively. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.
Exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ models shown as a function of the mass of wino/higgsino chargino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm})$) and the mass of bino LSP ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limits for a representative branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow Z\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=50$%. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane of the physical electroweakino masses $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}))$ representing $(m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}),m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}}))$. The expected limit for the 1$\sigma$ down variation is not shown as no mass points could be excluded.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ models. The limits are projected on to a two-dimensional plane as a function of the wino/higgsino mass parameters: $(M_2,\mu)$. For the limits shown on the $(M_2,\mu)$ plane, the excluded regions are indicated by the area inside the contours. The expected limits for the 1$\sigma$ down variation are not shown as no mass points could be excluded. The round excluded area in the top part corresponds to the excluded parameter space in the $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{H})$ model $(M_{2} > |\mu|)$, while the two small areas in at the bottom are that in the $(\tilde{H},~\tilde{W})$ model $(M_{2} < |\mu|)$.
Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.
Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.
Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.
Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.
Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.
Expected (dashed) and observed (solid red) 95% CL exclusion limit derived for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model, as a function of the lightest higgsino mass ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$) and the branching ratio $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{G}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{G}))$. The excluded region is indicated by the area inside the contour.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed line) and observed (solid red line) limits calculated for $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=100$%.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=75$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=75$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=50$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=50$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.
95% CL exclusion limits for the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{a})$ model as the function of axino mass ($m(\tilde{a})$) and the lightest higgsino ($m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})$). Expected (dashed lines) and observed (solid lines) limits with various $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a}) (=1-\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to h\tilde{a}))$ hypotheses. No expected limit is derived for the case with $\mathcal{B}(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0} \to Z\tilde{a})=25$% as no mass point on the plane can be excluded.
The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.
The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.
The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.
The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.
The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.
The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{W},\tilde{H})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of wino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) are shown as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of the lightest higgsino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively. The branchings into the two neutral higgsinos are summed up in the presentation i.e. $\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1,2}^{0}) := \mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})+\mathcal{B}(\dots \rightarrow \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0})$.
The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.
The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.
The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.
The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.
The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.
The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.
The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.
The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.
The $\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}}$ branching ratios in the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{W})$ model ($\tan\beta=10, \mu>0$). The branching ratios of higgsino-like chargino ($\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$) and higgsino-like neutralinos ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, $\tilde{\chi}_{3}^{0}$) as the function of the mass of $\tilde{\chi}_{2}^{\pm}$ and that of wino-like neutralino ($\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$), representing $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{light}})$ and $m(\tilde{\chi}_{\textrm{heavy}})$ respectively.
Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.
Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.
Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh). The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.
Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ models. The black numbers represents the expected cross-section upper-limits.
Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1C1-WW). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.
Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-WZ). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.
Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{W},~\tilde{B})$-SIM model (C1N2-Wh). The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.
Expected (dashed) and observed (solid) 95% CL exclusion limits on $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ models. The black numbers represents the observed cross-section upper-limits.
Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1C1-WW) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.
Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.
Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.
Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-Wh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%.
Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.
Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.
Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-Zh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.
Signal acceptance of $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-hh) by their most relevant SRs, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.
Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-4Q-VV, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.
Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-2B2Q-VZ, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.
Signal acceptance of the $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ model by SR-2B2Q-Vh, evaluated using MC simulation. The acceptance is given by the ratio of weighted selected events by the SR to the weighted total generated events including all the $W/Z/h$ decays. The selection is based on generator-level particle information. The efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging are treated as 100%. Acceptance below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.
Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1C1-WW) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.
Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.
Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-WZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.
Efficiency for $(\tilde{W},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (C1N2-Wh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging.
Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.
Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-ZZ) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.
Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-Zh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.
Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{B})$ simplified models (N2N3-hh) in their most relevant SRs. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry.
Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-4Q-VV. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.
Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-2B2Q-VZ. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.
Efficiency for $(\tilde{H},\tilde{G})$ in SR-2B2Q-Vh. The efficiency in a given SR is defined by the ratio of weighted events selected based on the generator-level particle information and that based on detector simulation and particle reconstruction. This mainly accounts for the efficiency of lepton reconstruction/identification, $b$-tagging, as well as the $D_2$ and $n_{\textrm{trk}}$ selection in the and $W_{qq}$/$Z_{qq}$-tagging. Efficiency below 0.005\% is rounded to 0.00 in the entry. The spiky efficiency values (e.g. $m(\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0})=600~\textrm{GeV}$ in SR-4Q-VV) are because of the difference between the truth and reconstructed samples amplified by a statistical fluctuation due to the limited statistics.
A search for flavor-changing neutral-current couplings between a top quark, an up or charm quark and a $Z$ boson is presented, using proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV collected by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. The analyzed dataset corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. The search targets both single-top-quark events produced as $gq\rightarrow tZ$ (with $q = u, c$) and top-quark-pair events, with one top quark decaying through the $t \rightarrow Zq$ channel. The analysis considers events with three leptons (electrons or muons), a $b$-tagged jet, possible additional jets, and missing transverse momentum. The data are found to be consistent with the background-only hypothesis and 95% confidence-level limits on the $t \rightarrow Zq$ branching ratios are set, assuming only tensor operators of the Standard Model effective field theory framework contribute to the $tZq$ vertices. These are $6.2 \times 10^{-5}$ ($13\times 10^{-5}$) for $t\rightarrow Zu$ ($t\rightarrow Zc$) for a left-handed $tZq$ coupling, and $6.6 \times 10^{-5}$ ($12\times 10^{-5}$) in the case of a right-handed coupling. These results are interpreted as 95% CL upper limits on the strength of corresponding couplings, yielding limits for $|C_{uW}^{(13)*}|$ and $|C_{uB}^{(13)*}|$ ($|C_{uW}^{(31)}|$ and $|C_{uB}^{(31)}|$) of 0.15 (0.16), and limits for $|C_{uW}^{(23)*}|$ and $|C_{uB}^{(23)*}|$ ($|C_{uW}^{(32)}|$ and $|C_{uB}^{(32)}|$) of 0.22 (0.21), assuming a new-physics energy scale $\Lambda_\text{NP}$ of 1 TeV.
Summary of the signal strength $\mu$ parameters obtained from the fits to extract LH and RH results for the FCNC tZu and tZc couplings. For the reference branching ratio, the most stringent limits are used.
Observed and expected 95% CL limits on the FCNC $t\rightarrow Zq$ branching ratios and the effective coupling strengths for different vertices and couplings (top eight rows). For the latter, the energy scale is assumed to be $\Lambda_{NP}$ = 1 TeV. The bottom rows show, for the case of the FCNC $t\rightarrow Zu$ branching ratio, the observed and expected 95% CL limits when only one of the two SRs, either SR1 or SR2, and all CRs are included in the likelihood.
Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the SM top-quark candidate in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).
Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the FCNC top-quark candidate in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).
Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the mass of the SM top-quark candidate in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).
Comparison between data and background prediction before the fit (Pre-Fit) for the transverse momentum of the Z boson candidate in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The four FCNC LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to five times the cross-section corresponding to the most stringent observed branching ratio limits. The first (last) bin in all distributions includes the underflow (overflow). The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).
Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).
Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).
Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).
Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{u}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).
Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).
Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in the mass sideband CR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 500 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).
Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in SR1. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).
Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZc LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{2}^{c}$ discriminant in SR2. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZc LH signals are also separately shown, normalized to 50 times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).
Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).
Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the third lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).
Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the leading lepton $p_{T}$ in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The last bin includes the overflow. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).
Comparison between data and background prediction after the fit to data (Post-Fit) for the FCNC tZu LH coupling extraction. The distribution is for the $D_{1}$ discriminant in the $t\bar{t}Z$ CR. The uncertainty band includes both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the background prediction. The FCNC tZu LH signals are also shown separately, normalized to $10^{3}$ times the best fit of the signal yield. The lower panels show the ratios of the data (Data) to the background prediction (Bkg.).
A search for a heavy CP-odd Higgs boson, $A$, decaying into a $Z$ boson and a heavy CP-even Higgs boson, $H$, is presented. It uses the full LHC Run 2 dataset of $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV collected with the ATLAS detector, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $140$ fb$^{-1}$. The search for $A\to ZH$ is performed in the $\ell^+\ell^- t\bar{t}$ and $\nu\bar{\nu}b\bar{b}$ final states and surpasses the reach of previous searches in different final states in the region with $m_H>350$ GeV and $m_A>800$ GeV. No significant deviation from the Standard Model expectation is found. Upper limits are placed on the production cross-section times the decay branching ratios. Limits with less model dependence are also presented as functions of the reconstructed $m(t\bar{t})$ and $m(b\bar{b})$ distributions in the $\ell^+\ell^- t\bar{t}$ and $\nu\bar{\nu}b\bar{b}$ channels, respectively. In addition, the results are interpreted in the context of two-Higgs-doublet models.
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=300 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=300 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The m(tt) distribution in the Lhi3_Zin region of the lltt channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The m(bb) distribution in the 2 b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The m(bb) distribution in the 3+ b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=1. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt)$ in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=10. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=1. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=10. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt) in he (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=0.5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=1. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->tt)$ in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=0.5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(gg->A)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=1. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=5. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Expected and observed upper limits at 95% CL on sigma(bbA)*B(A->ZH)*B(H->bb) in the (mA,mH) plane. The limits are shown for tanbeta=20. The tanbeta value is relevant only for the choice of the A boson width. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis with the bbA signal shown for comparison. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The m(tt) distribution in the L3hi_Zin region of the lltt channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis with the bbA signal shown for comparison. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=350 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=400 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=500 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=550 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=600 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=700 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant m(lltt)-m(tt) in the signal region of the lltt channel for the mH=800 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=130 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=150 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=200 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=250 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=350 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=400 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=500 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=600 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=700 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=800 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH i+ the 3p b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=130 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=150 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=200 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=250 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=350 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=400 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=450 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=500 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=600 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=700 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag signal region of the vvbb channel for the mH=800 GeV hypothesis. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag 2L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 2 b-tag em region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag 2L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The distribution of the fit discriminant mTVH in the 3+ b-tag em region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Local significance for lltt ggF signals for tanbeta=1. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Local significance for lltt bbA signals for tanbeta=20. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Local significance for vvbb ggF signals for tanbeta=1. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Local significance for vvbb bbA signals for tanbeta=20. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Signal acceptance times efficiency for lltt ggF signals. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Signal acceptance times efficiency for lltt bbA signals. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Signal acceptance times efficiency for vvbb ggF signals. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
Signal acceptance times efficiency for vvbb bbA signals. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The pT distribution of the third lepton in the L3hi_Zin region of the lltt channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The eta distribution of the H boson candidate in the rest frame of the A boson candidate in the L3hi_Zin region of the lltt channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The ETmiss distribution in the 2 b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The m_top_near distribution in the 2 b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The ETmiss distribution in the 3+ b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
The m_top_near distribution in the 3+ b-tag 0L region of the vvbb channel. <br><br><a href="?table=overview">return to overview</a>
A search for resonant Higgs boson pair production in the $b\bar{b}b\bar{b}$ final state is presented. The analysis uses 126-139 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV collected with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. The analysis is divided into two channels, targeting Higgs boson decays which are reconstructed as pairs of small-radius jets or as individual large-radius jets. Spin-0 and spin-2 benchmark signal models are considered, both of which correspond to resonant $HH$ production via gluon$-$gluon fusion. The data are consistent with Standard Model predictions. Upper limits are set on the production cross-section times branching ratio to Higgs boson pairs of a new resonance in the mass range from 251 GeV to 5 TeV.
Cumulative acceptance times efficiency as a function of resonance mass for each event selection step in the resolved channel for the spin-0 signal models. The local maximum at 251 GeV is a consequence of the near-threshold kinematics.
Cumulative acceptance times efficiency as a function of resonance mass for each event selection step in the resolved channel for the spin-2 signal models. The local maximum at 251 GeV is a consequence of the near-threshold kinematics.
Corrected $m(HH)$ distribution in the resolved $4b$ validation region (dots), compared with the reweighted distribution in $2b$ validation region (teal histogram). The error bars on the $4b$ points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The final bin includes overflow. The background uncertainty (gray band) is computed by adding all individual components in quadrature. The bottom panel shows the difference between the $4b$ and reweighted $2b$ distributions, relative to the $2b$ distribution.
Corrected $m(HH)$ distribution in the resolved $4b$ signal region (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the $4b$ points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (teal histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The final bin includes overflow. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed, dotted, and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. The bottom panel shows the difference between the $4b$ distribution and the background model, relative to the background model. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.
Corrected $m(HH)$ distribution in the resolved $4b$ signal region (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the $4b$ points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (teal histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The final bin includes overflow. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed, dotted, and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. The bottom panel shows the difference between the $4b$ distribution and the background model, relative to the background model. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.
Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The steps up to the $b$-tag categorization are shown for the spin-0.
Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The steps up to the $b$-tag categorization are shown for the spin-2.
Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The efficiencies of the three b-tag categories are shown for the spin-0 scenario; this efficiency is obtained after the other selection steps including the SR definition. The signal efficiency in the 4b region has a maximum around 1.5 TeV. Above that value the track-jets start to merge together, and for the highest resonance masses the 2b category becomes the most efficient.
Cumulative signal acceptance times efficiency as a function of the resonance mass for various selection steps in the boosted channel. The efficiencies of the three b-tag categories are shown for the spin-2 scenario; this efficiency is obtained after the other selection steps including the SR definition. The signal efficiency in the 4b region has a maximum around 1.5 TeV. Above that value the track-jets start to merge together, and for the highest resonance masses the 2b category becomes the most efficient.
Comparison of the background model (stacked histograms) with data (dots) in the $2b$ validation region. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background uncertainty (gray band) is computed by adding all individual components in quadrature and is not allowed to extend below zero.
Comparison of the background model (stacked histograms) with data (dots) in the $3b$ validation region. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background uncertainty (gray band) is computed by adding all individual components in quadrature and is not allowed to extend below zero.
Comparison of the background model (stacked histograms) with data (dots) in the $4b$ validation region. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background uncertainty (gray band) is computed by adding all individual components in quadrature and is not allowed to extend below zero.
The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $2b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.
The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $2b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.
The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $3b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.
The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $3b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.
The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $4b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-0 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.
The $m(HH)$ distributions in the boosted $4b$ signal regions (dots), after the fit under the background-only hypothesis. The error bars on the data points represent the Poisson uncertainties corresponding to their event yields. The background model (stacked histogram) is shown with its total post-fit uncertainty (gray band). The uncertainty bands are defined using an ensemble of curves constructed by sampling a multivariate Gaussian probability density function built from the covariance matrix of the fit. Representative spin-2 signal hypotheses (dashed and dashed-dotted lines) are overlaid, normalized to the overall expected limits on their cross-sections. No significant excess of data relative to the SM background is observed.
Expected (dashed black lines) and observed (solid black lines) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $HH$ production in the spin-0 signal models. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits (colored bands) are shown. Expected limits using each of the resolved and boosted channels individually (dashed colored lines) are shown. The nominal $H\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ branching ratio is taken as 0.582.
Expected (dashed black lines) and observed (solid black lines) 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section of resonant $HH$ production in the spin-2 signal models. The $\pm 1 \sigma$ and $\pm 2 \sigma$ uncertainty ranges for the expected limits (colored bands) are shown. Expected limits using each of the resolved and boosted channels individually (dashed colored lines) are shown. The theoretical prediction for the bulk RS model with $k/\bar{M}_{\text{Pl}} = 1$ (solid red line) is shown; the decrease below 350 GeV is due to a sharp reduction in the $G^{*}_{\text{KK}} \rightarrow HH$ branching ratio. The nominal $H\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ branching ratio is taken as 0.582.
A search for long-lived particles decaying into hadrons is presented. The analysis uses 139 fb$^{-1}$ of $pp$ collision data collected at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV by the ATLAS detector at the LHC using events that contain multiple energetic jets and a displaced vertex. The search employs dedicated reconstruction techniques that significantly increase the sensitivity to long-lived particles decaying in the ATLAS inner detector. Background estimates for Standard Model processes and instrumental effects are extracted from data. The observed event yields are compatible with those expected from background processes. The results are used to set limits at 95% confidence level on model-independent cross sections for processes beyond the Standard Model, and on scenarios with pair-production of supersymmetric particles with long-lived electroweakinos that decay via a small $R$-parity-violating coupling. The pair-production of electroweakinos with masses below 1.5 TeV is excluded for mean proper lifetimes in the range from 0.03 ns to 1 ns. When produced in the decay of $m(\tilde{g})=2.4$ TeV gluinos, electroweakinos with $m(\tilde\chi^0_1)=1.5$ TeV are excluded with lifetimes in the range of 0.02 ns to 4 ns.
Validation of background estimate in validation regions for the High-pT jet selections
Validation of background estimate in validation regions for the Trackless jet selections
Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the High-pT jet SR for observed data events
Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the High-pT jet SR for expected signal events in the strong gluino pair pair production model with m(gluino)=1.8 TeV, m(chi0)=0.2 TeV, tau(chi0)=0.1 ns
Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the Trackless jet SR for observed data events
Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the Trackless jet SR for expected signal events in the electroweak pair production model
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV
Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the electroweak pair production model.
Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns
Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns
Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns
Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns
Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns
Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns
Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns
Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the strong gluino pair production models and m($ ilde{\chi}^0_1$)=1.25 TeV
Acceptance cutflow for the High-pT SR for representative points in the strong gluino pair production model. See additional resources for more information.
Acceptance cutflow for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model. See additional resources for more information.
Acceptance cutflow for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks final state. See additional resources for more information.
Acceptance cutflow for the High-pT SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks final state. See additional resources for more information.
Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R < 1150 mm
Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R > 3870 mm
Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R < 1150 mm
Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R > 3870 mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R < 22 mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [22, 25] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [25, 29] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [29, 38] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [38, 46] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [46, 73] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [73, 84] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [84, 111] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [111, 120] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [120, 145] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [145, 180] mm
Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [180, 300] mm
Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the High-pT SR for representative points in the strong gluino pair production model. See additional resources for more information.
Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model. See additional resources for more information.
Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks. See additional resources for more information.
Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the High-pT SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks. See additional resources for more information.
When you search on a word, e.g. 'collisions', we will automatically search across everything we store about a record. But sometimes you may wish to be more specific. Here we show you how.
Guidance on the query string syntax can also be found in the OpenSearch documentation.
About HEPData Submitting to HEPData HEPData File Formats HEPData Coordinators HEPData Terms of Use HEPData Cookie Policy
Status
Email
Forum
Twitter
GitHub
Copyright ~1975-Present, HEPData | Powered by Invenio, funded by STFC, hosted and originally developed at CERN, supported and further developed at IPPP Durham.