Showing 10 of 5120 results
The result of a search for the pair production of the lightest supersymmetric partner of the bottom quark ($\tilde{b}_{1}$) using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton data collected at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV by the ATLAS detector is reported. In the supersymmetric scenarios considered both of the bottom-squarks decay into a $b$-quark and the second-lightest neutralino, $\tilde{b}_{1} \rightarrow b + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$. Each $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ is assumed to subsequently decay with 100% branching ratio into a Higgs boson ($h$) like the one in the Standard Model and the lightest neutralino: $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2} \rightarrow h + \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$. The $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ is assumed to be the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP) and is stable. Two signal mass configurations are targeted: the first has a constant LSP mass of 60 GeV; and the second has a constant mass difference between the $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ and $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$ of 130 GeV. The final states considered contain no charged leptons, three or more $b$-jets, and large missing transverse momentum. No significant excess of events over the Standard Model background expectation is observed in any of the signal regions considered. Limits at the 95% confidence level are placed in the supersymmetric models considered, and bottom-squarks with mass up to 1.5 TeV are excluded.
Distributions of ${E}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of ${E}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of ${E}_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of Object-based $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} {Sig.}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of Object-based $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} {Sig.}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of Object-based $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} {Sig.}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of MaxMin alternative algorithm $m(h_{\mathrm{cand1}},h_{\mathrm{cand2}})_{\mathrm{avg}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of MaxMin alternative algorithm $m(h_{\mathrm{cand1}},h_{\mathrm{cand2}})_{\mathrm{avg}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of MaxMin alternative algorithm $m(h_{\mathrm{cand1}},h_{\mathrm{cand2}})_{\mathrm{avg}}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of Leading jet $p_T$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of Leading jet $p_T$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of Leading jet $p_T$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of MaxMin algorithm $m_{hcand}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of MaxMin algorithm $m_{hcand}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Distributions of MaxMin algorithm $m_{hcand}$ after the background-only fit. The backgrounds which contribute only a small amount (diboson, W+jets and ttbar+W/Z/h) are grouped and labelled as `Other'.
Signal efficiency in SRA_M_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_M_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_M_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal acceptance in SRC_28 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_28 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_28 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_26 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_26 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_26 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_24 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_24 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_24 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_M_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_M_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_M_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRB for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRB for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRB for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_L_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_L_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_L_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_incl for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_incl for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_incl for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_L_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_L_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_L_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_incl_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_incl_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_incl_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_incl_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_incl_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_incl_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal efficiency in SRA_H_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_H_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_H_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_L_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_L_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_L_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRB for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRB for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRB for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal acceptance in SRC_22 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_22 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRC_22 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal efficiency in SRA_H_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_H_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_H_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_24 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_24 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_24 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_26 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_26 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_26 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal acceptance in SRA_H_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_H_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_H_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal efficiency in SRA_incl_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_incl_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_incl_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_22 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_22 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_22 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal acceptance in SRA_M_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_M_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_M_m60 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal efficiency in SRC_28 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_28 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_28 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal acceptance in SRA_H_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_H_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SRA_H_dm130 for simplified models with $\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$ production
Signal efficiency in SRA_incl_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_incl_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_incl_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_L_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_L_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_L_m60 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_M_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_M_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRA_M_dm130 for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_incl for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_incl for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Signal efficiency in SRC_incl for simplified models with '$\widetilde{b}\widetilde{b}$ $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b} \widetilde{\chi}_2^0 \widetilde{\chi}_2^0$ $\rightarrow$ hh$\widetilde{\chi}_1^0 \widetilde{\chi}_1^0$, h $\rightarrow$ $b\bar{b}$' production
Result of background only fit applied to signal regions. Event yields from the signal regions compared with SM MC predictions for the 3 highest contributing backgrounds separately and combined minor backgrounds.
Result of background only fit applied to signal regions. Event yields from the signal regions compared with SM MC predictions for the 3 highest contributing backgrounds separately and combined minor backgrounds.
Result of background only fit applied to signal regions. Event yields from the signal regions compared with SM MC predictions for the 3 highest contributing backgrounds separately and combined minor backgrounds.
Expected background event yields and dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the A-type (inclusive), B-type and C-type (inclusive) regions.
Expected background event yields and dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the A-type (inclusive), B-type and C-type (inclusive) regions.
Expected background event yields and dominant systematic uncertainties on background estimates in the A-type (inclusive), B-type and C-type (inclusive) regions.
Background-only fit results for the A- and B-type regions performed using 139$fb^{-1}$ of data. The quoted uncertainties on the fitted SM background include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Background-only fit results for the A- and B-type regions performed using 139$fb^{-1}$ of data. The quoted uncertainties on the fitted SM background include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Background-only fit results for the A- and B-type regions performed using 139$fb^{-1}$ of data. The quoted uncertainties on the fitted SM background include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Background-only fit results for the C-type region performed using 139$fb^{-1}$ of data. The quoted uncertainties on the fitted SM background include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Background-only fit results for the C-type region performed using 139$fb^{-1}$ of data. The quoted uncertainties on the fitted SM background include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Background-only fit results for the C-type region performed using 139$fb^{-1}$ of data. The quoted uncertainties on the fitted SM background include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the visible cross sections σvis, the observed (S95obs) and expected (S95exp) 95% CL upper limits on the number of signal events with ± 1 σ excursions of the expectation, the CL of the background-only hypothesis, CLB, the discovery p-value (p0), truncated at 0.5, and the associated significance.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the visible cross sections σvis, the observed (S95obs) and expected (S95exp) 95% CL upper limits on the number of signal events with ± 1 σ excursions of the expectation, the CL of the background-only hypothesis, CLB, the discovery p-value (p0), truncated at 0.5, and the associated significance.
Observed 95% CL upper limits on the visible cross sections σvis, the observed (S95obs) and expected (S95exp) 95% CL upper limits on the number of signal events with ± 1 σ excursions of the expectation, the CL of the background-only hypothesis, CLB, the discovery p-value (p0), truncated at 0.5, and the associated significance.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRA selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (1100, 330, 200)$ GeV, considered.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRA selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (1100, 330, 200)$ GeV, considered.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRA selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (1100, 330, 200)$ GeV, considered.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRB selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (700, 680, 550)$ GeV, considered.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRB selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (700, 680, 550)$ GeV, considered.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRB selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (700, 680, 550)$ GeV, considered.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRC selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (1200, 1150, 60)$ GeV, considered.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRC selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (1200, 1150, 60)$ GeV, considered.
Cutflow of the MC events scaled to 139 $fb^{-1}$ for the SRC selections, with a scalar bottom signal of m$(\widetilde{b}_{1},\widetilde{\chi}_2^0,\widetilde{\chi}_1^0) = (1200, 1150, 60)$ GeV, considered.
This Letter presents direct searches for lepton flavour violation in Higgs boson decays, $H\rightarrow e\tau$ and $H\rightarrow\mu\tau$, performed with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. The searches are based on a data sample of proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $36.1\,\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$. No significant excess is observed above the expected background from Standard Model processes. The observed (median expected) 95 % confidence-level upper limits on the lepton-flavour-violating branching ratios are $0.47\%$ ($0.34^{+0.13}_{-0.10}\,\%$) and $0.28\%$ ($0.37^{+0.14}_{-0.10}\,\%$) for $H\to e\tau$ and $H\to\mu\tau$, respectively.
95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio H --> e tau.
95% CL upper limits on the branching ratio H --> mu tau.
A search for supersymmetric partners of gluons and quarks is presented, involving signatures with jets and either two isolated leptons (electrons or muons) with the same electric charge, or at least three isolated leptons. A data sample of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider between 2015 and 2018, corresponding to a total integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$, is used for the search. No significant excess over the Standard Model expectation is observed. The results are interpreted in simplified supersymmetric models featuring both R-parity conservation and R-parity violation, raising the exclusion limits beyond those of previous ATLAS searches to 1600 GeV for gluino masses and 750 GeV for bottom and top squark masses in these scenarios.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g \to q \bar{q}^{'} \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \to W^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $ \tilde{\chi}_2^0 \to Z \tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g \to q \bar{q}^{'} \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \to W^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $ \tilde{\chi}_2^0 \to Z \tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g \to q \bar{q}^{'} \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \to W^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $ \tilde{\chi}_2^0 \to Z \tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g \to q \bar{q}^{'} \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm \to W^\pm \tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $ \tilde{\chi}_2^0 \to Z \tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpc2L0b on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in signal region Rpv2L on the gluino and lightest top squark masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Expected 95% CL exclusion contours in the best combination of signal regions of Rpc2L1b and Rpc2L2b on the lightest bottom squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L0b, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 1200 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 1000 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L0b, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 1200 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 1000 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L0b, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 1200 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 1000 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L0b, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 1200 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 1000 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 850 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 500 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 400 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 850 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 500 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 400 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 850 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 500 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 400 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 850 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 500 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 400 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L2b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 850 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 500 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 400 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L2b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 900 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 150 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 50 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L2b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 900 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 150 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 50 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc2L2b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{b}^{}_1)$ = 900 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)$ = 150 GeV and $m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 50 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc3LSS1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{t}^{}_1)$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 625 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)\approx m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 525 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc3LSS1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{t}^{}_1)$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 625 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)\approx m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 525 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc3LSS1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{t}^{}_1)$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 625 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)\approx m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 525 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpc3LSS1b, in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde{t}^{}_1)$ = 800 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_2^0)$ = 625 GeV, $m(\tilde \chi_1^\pm)\approx m(\tilde \chi_1^0)$ = 525 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t}^{}_{1})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t}^{}_{1})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t}^{}_{1})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Number of signal events expected for 139 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region Rpv2L, in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$. The masses of the superpartners involved in the process are set to $m(\tilde g)$ = 1600 GeV, $m(\tilde{t}^{}_{1})$ = 800 GeV. Only statistical uncertainties are shown.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal acceptance for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Signal acceptance for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Signal acceptance for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Signal acceptance for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Signal acceptance for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Signal acceptance for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Signal acceptance for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Signal acceptance for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L0b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc2L2b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Signal efficiency for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Signal efficiency for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Signal efficiency for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Signal efficiency for Rpv2L signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Signal efficiency for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Signal efficiency for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Signal efficiency for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Signal efficiency for Rpc3LSS1b signal region with sensitivity to $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde g\to q\bar{q}^{'}\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ and $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to Z\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay into a top quark and an top squark, which in turn decays via non-zero baryon-number-violating RPV couplings $\lambda^{''}_{313}$, $\tilde g\to t\tilde{t}_1$ followed by $\tilde{t}_1\to b d$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{b}^{}_1\tilde{b}^{*}_1$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of bottom-antibottom squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a chargino, $\tilde b^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_1^-$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to W^\pm\tilde{\chi}_1^0$.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
Observed 95% CL upper limit on $pp\to \tilde{t}^{}_\mathrm{1}\tilde{t}^{*}_\mathrm{1}$ production cross-sections in a SUSY scenario where pairs of top-antitop squarks are produced and decay into the lightest neutralino via a two-steps cascade, $\tilde t^{}_{1}\to t\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ followed by $\tilde{\chi}_2^0\to \tilde{\chi}_1^\pm W^\mp$ and $\tilde{\chi}_1^\pm\to f\bar{f^{'}}\tilde{\chi}_1^0$. The lightest chargino and the lightest neutralino are assumed to be nearly mass-degenerate.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L0b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L0b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L0b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L0b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L1b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L1b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L1b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L1b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L2b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L2b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L2b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpc2L2b from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpv2L from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpv2L from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpv2L from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
N-1 distributions for $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of observed data and expected background towards Rpv2L from publication's Figure 5 . The last bin is inclusive.
The results of a search for electroweakino pair production $pp \rightarrow \tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2$ in which the chargino ($\tilde\chi^\pm_1$) decays into a $W$ boson and the lightest neutralino ($\tilde\chi^0_1$), while the heavier neutralino ($\tilde\chi^0_2$) decays into the Standard Model 125 GeV Higgs boson and a second $\tilde\chi^0_1$ are presented. The signal selection requires a pair of $b$-tagged jets consistent with those from a Higgs boson decay, and either an electron or a muon from the $W$ boson decay, together with missing transverse momentum from the corresponding neutrino and the stable neutralinos. The analysis is based on data corresponding to 139 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV $pp$ collisions provided by the Large Hadron Collider and recorded by the ATLAS detector. No statistically significant evidence of an excess of events above the Standard Model expectation is found. Limits are set on the direct production of the electroweakinos in simplified models, assuming pure wino cross-sections. Masses of $\tilde{\chi}^{\pm}_{1}/\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{2}$ up to 740 GeV are excluded at 95% confidence level for a massless $\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-onHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offLM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offMM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution is shown in the validation region VR-offHM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{CT}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{CT}$ cut used in SR selection. The first and the last bin include the underflow and overflow events (where present), respectively.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-HM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-MM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{CT}$ distribution for SR-LM. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-HM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The stacked histograms show the expected SM backgrounds. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection.The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-MM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The post-fit $m_{bb}$ distribution is shown in the signal region SR-LM after all the selection requirements are applied other than the $m_{bb}$ cut. The hatched bands represent the sum in quadrature of systematic and statistical uncertainties of the total SM background. For illustration, the distribution of the SUSY reference points are also shown as dashed lines. The red line with arrow indicates the $m_{bb}$ cut used in SR selection. The overflow events, where present, are included in the last bin.
The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion up limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The observed exclusion down limit for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm 1 \sigma$ on the observed exclusion limit due to the theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
The expected exclusion for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. Experimental and theoretical systematic uncertainties are applied to background and signal samples and illustrated by the yellow band and the red dotted contour lines, respectively. The red dotted lines indicate the $\pm$ 1 standard-deviation variation on the observed exclusion limit due to theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section.
Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Upper limits on the cross sections for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production. 1lb\bar{b}$ production
Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal acceptance in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-LM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-MM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM low $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Signal efficiency in SR-HM high $m_{CT}$ for simplified models with $\tilde\chi^\pm_1 \tilde\chi^0_2 \rightarrow Wh\tilde\chi^0_1\tilde\chi^0_1, W \rightarrow l\nu, h \rightarrow b\bar{b}$ production.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-LM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-MM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM low $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM med. $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the SR-HM high $m_{CT}$. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-LM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-MM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
Event selection cutflow for a representative signal sample for the discovery SR-HM. The masses of next-lightest-neutralinos and LSPs are reported. While the first row of the table reports the total raw MC events produced, all subsequent rows show weighted events. Only statistical uncertainties are shown. Samples are produced with generator filters which selects $h\rightarrow b\bar{b}$ and $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ decays.
A search for direct pair production of scalar partners of the top quark (top squarks or scalar third-generation up-type leptoquarks) in the all-hadronic $t\bar{t}$ plus missing transverse momentum final state is presented. The analysis of 139 fb$^{-1}$ of ${\sqrt{s}=13}$ TeV proton-proton collision data collected using the ATLAS detector at the LHC yields no significant excess over the Standard Model background expectation. To interpret the results, a supersymmetric model is used where the top squark decays via $\tilde{t} \to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi}^0_1$, with $t^{(*)}$ denoting an on-shell (off-shell) top quark and $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ the lightest neutralino. Three specific event selections are optimised for the following scenarios. In the scenario where $m_{\tilde{t}}> m_t+m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$, top squark masses are excluded in the range 400-1250 GeV for $\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses below $200$ GeV at 95 % confidence level. In the situation where $m_{\tilde{t}}\sim m_t+m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$, top squark masses in the range 300-630 GeV are excluded, while in the case where $m_{\tilde{t}}< m_W+m_b+m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ (with $m_{\tilde{t}}-m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}\ge 5$ GeV), considered for the first time in an ATLAS all-hadronic search, top squark masses in the range 300-660 GeV are excluded. Limits are also set for scalar third-generation up-type leptoquarks, excluding leptoquarks with masses below $1240$ GeV when considering only leptoquark decays into a top quark and a neutrino.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contours are excluded.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contour are excluded.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$. Masses that are within the contour are excluded.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ vs. $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}$.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.
The observed exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.
The expected exclusion contour at 95% CL as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$. Points that are within the contours are excluded.
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of observed exclusion contour obtained by varying the signal cross section within its uncertainty. The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The plus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
The minus $1\sigma$ variation of expected exclusion contour obtained by varying MC statistical uncertainties, detector-related systematic uncertainties, and theoretical uncertainties (excluding signal cross section uncertainties). The contour is given as a function of the $\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}$ vs. $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau)$
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.
Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.
Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1})$ signal grid. The column titled 'Leading Region' stores information on which of the fit regions (SRA-B, SRC or SRD) is the dominant based on the expected CLs values.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.
Model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.
Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.
Expected model dependent upper limit on the cross section for the $LQ_{3}^{u}$ signal grid with $\mathrm{BR}(\it{m}_{LQ_{3}^{u}}\rightarrow b \tau))=0$ %. Only the SRA-B fit region is considered in this interpretation.
The distributions of $S$ in SRA-TW. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $S$ in SRA-TW. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $\it{m}^{\mathrm{R=1.2}}_{1}$ in SRB-TT. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $\it{m}^{\mathrm{R=1.2}}_{1}$ in SRB-TT. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of R$_{ISR}$ in SRC signal regions before R$_{ISR}$ cuts are applied. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of R$_{ISR}$ in SRC signal regions before R$_{ISR}$ cuts are applied. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD0. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD0. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD1. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD1. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD2. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
The distributions of $E^{miss}_{T}/\sqrt{H_{T}}$ in SRD2. For each bin yields for the data, total SM prediction and a representative signal point are provided. The SM prediction is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties, labeled 'stat', and the remaining uncertainties, labeled 'syst' that include detector-related systematic uncertainties and theoretical uncertainties. The signal predictions is provided with the MC statistical uncertainties only. The rightmost bin includes overflow events.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TT. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TT. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TW. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-TW. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-T0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (1300,1)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRA-T0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 30000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (700,400)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in signal regions SRB-TT, SRB-TW and SRB-T0. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 60000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (700,400)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in signal regions SRB-TT, SRB-TW and SRB-T0. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 60000 raw MC events were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (500,327)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in regions SRC-1, SRC-2, SRC-3, SRC-4 and SRC-5. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 150000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.384 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (500,327)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in regions SRC-1, SRC-2, SRC-3, SRC-4 and SRC-5. The regions differ by the last cut applied. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 150000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.384 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD0. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD1. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD1. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD2. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Cutflow for the reference point $(\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}, \it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}})= (550,500)\ \mathrm{GeV} $ in SRD2. The column labelled ''Weighted yield'' shows the results including all correction factors applied to simulation, and is normalised to 139 fb$^{-1}$. A notable exception concerns results in the first row, labelled ''Total'', that corresponds to plain $\sigma \cdot \mathcal{L}$ expected. The ''Derivation skim'' includes the requirements that $H_{T}$, the scalar sum of $p_{T}$ of jets and leptons, $H_{T}>150\ \mathrm{GeV}$ or that a ''baseline'' electron or muon has $p_{T}>20\ \mathrm{GeV}$. The definition of ''baseline'' electron/muons, lepton and $\tau$ vetos are described in the main body of the paper. In total 90000 raw MC events with filter efficiency of 0.428 were generated prior to the specified cuts, with the column ''Unweighted yield'' collecting the numbers after each cut.
Signal acceptance in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRA-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRA-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRA-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRB-TT for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRB-TW for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal acceptance in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{3}$
Signal efficiency in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal efficiency in SRB-T0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in %.
Signal acceptance in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC3 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC4 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ plane showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRC5 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD0 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD1 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal acceptance in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the acceptance given in the table is multiplied by factor of $10^{5}$ and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Signal efficiency in SRD2 for simplified $(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_1})$ model. Please mind that the efficiency in the table is reported in % and the results are given here in the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}}$ plane as opposed to the $\it{m}_{\tilde{t}}-\Delta(\it{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}},\it{m}_{\tilde{t}})$ one showed in the paper plot.
Results of a search for new physics in final states with an energetic jet and large missing transverse momentum are reported. The search uses proton-proton collision data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ at a center-of-mass energy of 13 TeV collected in the period 2015-2018 with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider. Compared to previous publications, in addition to an increase of almost a factor of four in the data size, the analysis implements a number of improvements in the signal selection and the background determination leading to enhanced sensitivity. Events are required to have at least one jet with transverse momentum above 150 GeV and no reconstructed leptons ($e$, $\mu$ or $\tau$) or photons. Several signal regions are considered with increasing requirements on the missing transverse momentum starting at 200 GeV. Overall agreement is observed between the number of events in data and the Standard Model predictions. Model-independent 95 % confidence-level limits on visible cross sections for new processes are obtained in the range between 736 fb and 0.3 fb with increasing missing transverse momentum. Results are also translated into improved exclusion limits in models with pair-produced weakly interacting dark-matter candidates, large extra spatial dimensions, supersymmetric particles in several compressed scenarios, axion-like particles, and new scalar particles in dark-energy-inspired models. In addition, the data are translated into bounds on the invisible branching ratio of the Higgs boson.
The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the $W \rightarrow \mu \nu $ control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.
The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the $W \rightarrow e \nu$ control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.
The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the top control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.
The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the $Z\rightarrow\mu\mu$ control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.
The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the $Z\rightarrow ee$ control region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.
The measured $p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{recoil}}$ distributions in the signal region, compared with the background predictions as estimated after the simultaneous, binned background-only fit to the data in the control regions. The last bin of the distribution contains overflows.
A search for heavy resonances decaying into a $W$ or $Z$ boson and a Higgs boson produced in proton$-$proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV is presented. The analysis utilizes the dominant $W \to q \bar{q}^\prime$ or $Z \to q \bar{q}$ and $H \to b \bar{b}$ decays with substructure techniques applied to large-radius jets. A sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$ collected with the ATLAS detector is analyzed and no significant excess of data is observed over the background prediction. The results are interpreted in the context of the Heavy Vector Triplet model with spin-1 $W^\prime$ and $Z^\prime$ bosons. Upper limits on the cross section are set for resonances with mass between 1.5 and 5.0 TeV, ranging from 6.8 to 0.53 fb for $W^\prime \to WH$ and from 8.7 to 0.53 fb for $Z^\prime \to ZH$ at the 95 % confidence level.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section in the WH channel.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section in the WH channel.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section in the ZH channel.
Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the cross section in the ZH channel.
Signal acceptance times efficiency of HVT WH(qqbb) events as a function of the resonance mass at different cut stages. Auxiliary table attached for 2 TeV mass point.
Signal acceptance times efficiency of HVT WH(qqbb) events as a function of the resonance mass at different cut stages. Auxiliary table attached for 2 TeV mass point.
Signal acceptance times efficiency of HVT ZH(qqbb) events as a function of the resonance mass at different cut stages. Auxiliary table attached for 4 TeV mass point.
Signal acceptance times efficiency of HVT ZH(qqbb) events as a function of the resonance mass at different cut stages. Auxiliary table attached for 4 TeV mass point.
Dijet mass distributions in the WH 1-tag signal region. Uncertainties in the background and signal histograms are set to zero. The signal corresponds to that expected for HVT model B with resonance mass of 2 TeV.
Dijet mass distributions in the WH 2-tag signal region. Uncertainties in the background and signal histograms are set to zero. The signal corresponds to that expected for HVT model B with resonance mass of 2 TeV.
Dijet mass distributions in the ZH 1-tag signal region. Uncertainties in the background and signal histograms are set to zero. The signal corresponds to that expected for HVT model B with resonance mass of 2 TeV.
Dijet mass distributions in the ZH 2-tag signal region. Uncertainties in the background and signal histograms are set to zero. The signal corresponds to that expected for HVT model B with resonance mass of 2 TeV.
In this paper, a new technique for reconstructing and identifying hadronically decaying $\tau^+\tau^-$ pairs with a large Lorentz boost, referred to as the di-$\tau$ tagger, is developed and used for the first time in the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. A benchmark di-$\tau$ tagging selection is employed in the search for resonant Higgs boson pair production, where one Higgs boson decays into a boosted $b\bar{b}$ pair and the other into a boosted $\tau^+\tau^-$ pair, with two hadronically decaying $\tau$-leptons in the final state. Using 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton$-$proton collision data recorded at a centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV, the efficiency of the di-$\tau$ tagger is determined and the background with quark- or gluon-initiated jets misidentified as di-$\tau$ objects is estimated. The search for a heavy, narrow, scalar resonance produced via gluon$-$gluon fusion and decaying into two Higgs bosons is carried out in the mass range 1$-$3 TeV using the same dataset. No deviations from the Standard Model predictions are observed, and 95% confidence-level exclusion limits are set on this model.
Signal acceptance times selection efficiency as a function of the resonance mass, at various stages of the event selection. From top to bottom: an event pre-selection (trigger, object definitions and $E_{T}^{miss}>10$ GeV) is performed first; the requirements on the di-$\tau$ object and large-$R$ jet detailed in the text are then applied; finally, the $HH$ SR definition must be satisfied.
Signal acceptance times selection efficiency as a function of the resonance mass, at various stages of the event selection. From top to bottom: an event pre-selection (trigger, object definitions and $E_{T}^{miss}>10$ GeV) is performed first; the requirements on the di-$\tau$ object and large-$R$ jet detailed in the text are then applied; finally, the $HH$ SR definition must be satisfied.
Distribution of $m^{vis}_{HH}$ after applying all the event selection that define the $HH$ SR, except the requirement on $m^{vis}_{HH}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. The $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ signal is overlaid for two resonance mass hypotheses with a cross-section set to the expected limit, while all backgrounds are pre-fit. The first and the last bins contains the under-flow and over-flow bin entries, respectively. The hatched bands represent combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Distribution of $m^{vis}_{HH}$ after applying all the event selection that define the $HH$ SR, except the requirement on $m^{vis}_{HH}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. The $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ signal is overlaid for two resonance mass hypotheses with a cross-section set to the expected limit, while all backgrounds are pre-fit. The first and the last bins contains the under-flow and over-flow bin entries, respectively. The hatched bands represent combined statistical and systematic uncertainties.
Event yields of the various estimated backgrounds and data, computed in the signal region of the search for $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are quoted. The background yields and uncertainties are pre-fit and are found to be similar to those post-fit.
Event yields of the various estimated backgrounds and data, computed in the signal region of the search for $X\rightarrow HH \rightarrow b\bar{b}\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. The background labelled as "Others" contains $W$+jets, diboson, $t\bar{t}$ and single-top-quark processes. Statistical and systematic uncertainties are quoted. The background yields and uncertainties are pre-fit and are found to be similar to those post-fit.
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy, narrow-width, scalar resonance decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons ($X\rightarrow HH$). The final state used in the search consists of a boosted $b\bar{b}$ pair and a boosted hadronically decaying $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ pair, and the SM braching ratio of the Higgs boson are assumed. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit are indicated by the error bands. Two different requirements are applied on the visible mass of the two boosted Higgs boson candidates for the resonance mass hypotheses of 1.6 TeV and 2.5 TeV, leading to discontinuities in the limits (at 1.6 TeV, the difference between imposing no requirement and $m^{vis}_{HH}>900$ GeV is less than 1% though).
Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the production of a heavy, narrow-width, scalar resonance decaying to a pair of Higgs bosons ($X\rightarrow HH$). The final state used in the search consists of a boosted $b\bar{b}$ pair and a boosted hadronically decaying $\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ pair, and the SM braching ratio of the Higgs boson are assumed. The $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ variations about the expected limit are indicated by the error bands. Two different requirements are applied on the visible mass of the two boosted Higgs boson candidates for the resonance mass hypotheses of 1.6 TeV and 2.5 TeV, leading to discontinuities in the limits (at 1.6 TeV, the difference between imposing no requirement and $m^{vis}_{HH}>900$ GeV is less than 1% though).
Narrow resonances decaying into $WW$, $WZ$ or $ZZ$ boson pairs are searched for in 139 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data at a centre-of-mass energy of $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV recorded with the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider from 2015 to 2018. The diboson system is reconstructed using pairs of high transverse momentum, large-radius jets. These jets are built from a combination of calorimeter- and tracker-inputs compatible with the hadronic decay of a boosted $W$ or $Z$ boson, using jet mass and substructure properties. The search is performed for diboson resonances with masses greater than 1.3 TeV. No significant deviations from the background expectations are observed. Exclusion limits at the 95% confidence level are set on the production cross-section times branching ratio into dibosons for resonances in a range of theories beyond the Standard Model, with the highest excluded mass of a new gauge boson at 3.8 TeV in the context of mass-degenerate resonances that couple predominantly to gauge bosons.
Limit Plot
Limit Plot
Limit Plot
Limit Plot
Limit Plot
Limit Plot
HVT WW Acceptance times Efficiency
HVT WZ Acceptance times Efficiency
RS Graviton WW Acceptance times Efficiency
RS Graviton ZZ Acceptance times Efficiency
Single- and double-differential cross-section measurements are presented for the production of top-quark pairs, in the lepton + jets channel at particle and parton level. Two topologies, resolved and boosted, are considered and the results are presented as a function of several kinematic variables characterising the top and $t\bar{t}$ system and jet multiplicities. The study was performed using data from $pp$ collisions at centre-of-mass energy of 13 TeV collected in 2015 and 2016 by the ATLAS detector at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $36~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$. Due to the large $t\bar{t}$ cross-section at the LHC, such measurements allow a detailed study of the properties of top-quark production and decay, enabling precision tests of several Monte Carlo generators and fixed-order Standard Model predictions. Overall, there is good agreement between the theoretical predictions and the data.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved 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 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 resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved 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 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 resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})|$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved 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 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 resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved 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 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 resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Total cross-section at particle level in the resolved 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.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 400.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 400.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 550.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 550.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 60.0 GeV. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 60.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 120.0 GeV. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 120.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 200.0 GeV. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 200.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 300.0 GeV. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $p_{T}^{t,had}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 300.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t,had}$ < 1000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 6.0. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 6.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. 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 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 $|p_{out}^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. 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 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 $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 . 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 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 $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 . 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 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 $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 5.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 6.5 . 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 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 $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 . 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 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 $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 3.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 4.5 . 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 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 $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 4.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 5.5 . 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 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 $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 5.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 6.5 . 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 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 $\Delta\phi(t,\bar{t})$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 6.5 < $N^{jets}$ < 7.5 . 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 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 $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. 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 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 $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. 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 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 $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. 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 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 $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. 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 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 $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. 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 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 $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. 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 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 $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. 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 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 $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. 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 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 $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. 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 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 $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. 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 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 $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. 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 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 $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. 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 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 $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. 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 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 $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. 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 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 $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. 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 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 $|y^{t,had}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. 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 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. 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 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. 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 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. 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 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. 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 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. 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 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. 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 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. 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 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 $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. 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 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 $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. 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 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 $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. 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 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 $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. 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 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 $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. 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 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 $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 4.0. 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 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 $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 5.0. 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 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 $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ = 6.0. 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 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 $\chi_{tt}$ vs $N^{jets}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in $N^{jets}$ $\geq$ 7.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 0.7 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.7 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.4 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 0.7 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.7 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.4 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.4 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.5 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.4 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.4 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.8 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.8 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.2 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 1.2 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 30.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 30.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 190.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the resolved topology in 190.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV. 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved 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 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 parton level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved 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 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 parton level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved 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 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 parton level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y_{boost}^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved 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 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 parton level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ at parton level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\chi_{tt}$ at parton level in the resolved 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t}|$ < 0.75 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.75 < $|y^{t}|$ < 1.5 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $|y^{t}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.5 < $|y^{t}|$ < 2.5 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 80.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 80.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 180.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 180.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 330.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 330.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 800.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.5 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.1 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.7 GeV < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 325.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 500.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 500.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 700.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 700.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1000.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2000.0 GeV. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.5 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 0.5 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.1 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.1 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.7 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at parton level in the resolved topology in 1.7 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.5 . 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $y^{t}$ at parton level in the resolved 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 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 parton level in the resolved 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 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 parton level in the resolved 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 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 parton level in the resolved 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t,had}|$ 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,1}$ 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,2}$ 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ 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 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. 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ 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 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. 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ 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 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. 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $\chi^{t\bar{t}}$ 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|p_{out}^{t,lep}|$ 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ 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 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. 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $N^{extra jets}$ 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $N^{extra jets}$ 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $N^{subjets}$ 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $N^{subjets}$ 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
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.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.0 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 1.0 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $|y^{t,had}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.0 < $|y^{t,had}|$ < 2.0 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 490.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1160.0 GeV. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1160.0 GeV < $m^{t\bar{t}}$ < 3000.0 GeV. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 350.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 780.0 GeV. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 780.0 GeV < $H_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 2500.0 GeV. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 40.0 GeV. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 40.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 150.0 GeV. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 150.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ < 1000.0 GeV. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.0 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 0.65 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 0.65 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 1.3 . 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ at particle level in the boosted topology in 1.3 < $|y^{t\bar{t}}|$ < 2.0 . 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 2.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t,had}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 3.0. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.5. 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 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 $p_{T}^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.5. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.0. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 1.0. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.0. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 0.0. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ = 1.0. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $N^{extra jets}$ at particle level in the boosted topology in $N^{extra jets}$ $\geq$ 2.0. 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ at parton 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 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 parton 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Relative differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
Total cross-section at parton 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.
Relative double-differential cross-section as a function of $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 550.0 GeV. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 2000.0 GeV. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology in 350.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 550.0 GeV. 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 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 $m^{t\bar{t}}$ vs $p_{T}^{t}$ at parton level in the boosted topology in 550.0 GeV < $p_{T}^{t}$ < 2000.0 GeV. 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 differential cross-section is compared with the prediction obtained with the Powheg+Pythia8 Monte Carlo generator.
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.