Search for a new heavy gauge-boson resonance decaying into a lepton and missing transverse momentum in 36 fb \(^{-1}\) of pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV with the ATLAS experiment

The European Physical Journal C, May 2018

The results of a search for new heavy \(W^\prime \) bosons decaying to an electron or muon and a neutrino using proton–proton collision data at a centre-of-mass energy of \(\sqrt{s}~=~13\) TeV are presented. The dataset was collected in 2015 and 2016 by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 \(\text{ fb }^{-1}\). As no excess of events above the Standard Model prediction is observed, the results are used to set upper limits on the \(W^\prime \) boson cross-section times branching ratio to an electron or muon and a neutrino as a function of the \(W^\prime \) mass. Assuming a \(W^\prime \) boson with the same couplings as the Standard Model W boson, \(W^\prime \) masses below 5.1 TeV are excluded at the 95% confidence level.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140%2Fepjc%2Fs10052-018-5877-y.pdf

Search for a new heavy gauge-boson resonance decaying into a lepton and missing transverse momentum in 36 fb \(^{-1}\) of pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV with the ATLAS experiment

Eur. Phys. J. C Search for a new heavy gauge-boson resonance decaying into a lepton and missing transverse momentum in 36 fb−1 of p p √ collisions at s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS experiment R. L. Bates 0 S. J. Batista 0 J. R. Batley 0 M. Battaglia 0 M. Bauce 0 F. Bauer 0 H. S. Bawa 0 J. B. Beacham 0 M. D. Beattie 0 T. Beau 0 P. H. Beauchemin 0 P. Bechtle 0 H. P. Beck 0 H. C. Beck 0 K. Becker 0 M. Becker 0 M. Beckingham 0 C. Becot 0 A. J. Beddall 0 A. Beddall 0 V. A. Bednyakov 0 M. Bedognetti 0 C. P. Bee 0 T. A. Beermann 0 M. Begalli 0 M. Begel 0 J. K. Behr 0 A. S. Bell 0 G. Bella 0 L. Bellagamba 0 A. Bellerive 0 M. Bellomo 0 K. Belotskiy 0 O. Beltramello 0 N. L. Belyaev 0 O. Benary 0 D. Benchekroun 0 M. Bender 0 K. Bendtz 0 N. Benekos 0 Y. Benhammou 0 E. Benhar Noccioli 0 J. Benitez 0 D. P. Benjamin 0 M. Benoit 0 J. R. Bensinger 0 S. Bentvelsen 0 L. Beresford 0 M. Beretta 0 D. Berge 0 E. Bergeaas Kuutmann 0 N. Berger 0 J. Beringer 0 S. Berlendis 0 N. R. Bernard 0 G. Bernardi 0 C. Bernius 0 F. U. Bernlochner 0 T. Berry 0 P. Berta 0 C. Bertella 0 G. Bertoli 0 F. Bertolucci 0 I. A. Bertram 0 C. Bertsche 0 D. Bertsche 0 G. J. Besjes 0 O. Bessidskaia Bylund 0 M. Bessner 0 N. Besson 0 C. Betancourt 0 A. Bethani 0 S. Bethke 0 A. J. Bevan 0 J. Beyer 0 R. M. Bianchi 0 O. Biebel 0 D. Biedermann 0 R. Bielski 0 K. Bierwagen 0 N. V. Biesuz 0 M. Biglietti 0 T. R. V. Billoud 0 H. Bilokon 0 M. Bindi 0 A. Bingul 0 C. Bini 0 S. Biondi 0 T. Bisanz 0 C. Bittrich 0 D. M. Bjergaard 0 C. W. Black 0 J. E. Black 0 K. M. Black 0 R. E. Blair 0 T. Blazek 0 I. Bloch 0 C. Blocker 0 A. Blue 0 W. Blum 0 U. Blumenschein 0 S. Blunier 0 G. J. Bobbink 0 V. S. Bobrovnikov 0 S. S. Bocchetta 0 A. Bocci 0 C. Bock 0 M. Boehler 0 D. Boerner 0 D. Bogavac 0 A. G. Bogdanchikov 0 C. Bohm 0 V. Boisvert 0 P. Bokan 0 T. Bold 0 A. S. Boldyrev 0 A. E. Bolz 0 M. Bomben 0 M. Bona 0 M. Boonekamp 0 A. Borisov 0 G. Borissov 0 J. Bortfeldt 0 D. Bortoletto 0 V. Bortolotto 0 D. Boscherini 0 M. Bosman 0 J. D. Bossio Sola 0 J. Boudreau 0 J. Bouffard 0 E. V. Bouhova-Thacker 0 D. Boumediene 0 C. Bourdarios 0 S. K. Boutle 0 A. Boveia 0 J. Boyd 0 I. R. Boyko 0 J. Bracinik 0 A. Brandt 0 G. Brandt 0 O. Brandt 0 U. Bratzler 0 B. Brau 0 J. E. Brau 0 W. D. Breaden Madden 0 K. Brendlinger 0 A. J. Brennan 0 L. Brenner 0 R. Brenner 0 S. Bressler 0 D. L. Briglin 0 T. M. Bristow 0 D. Britton 0 D. Britzger 0 F. M. Brochu 0 I. Brock 0 R. Brock 0 G. Brooijmans 0 T. Brooks 0 W. K. Brooks 0 J. Brosamer 0 E. Brost 0 J. H Broughton 0 P. A. Bruckman de Renstrom 0 D. Bruncko 0 A. Bruni 0 G. Bruni 0 L. S. Bruni 0 BH Brunt 0 M. Bruschi 0 N. Bruscino 0 P. Bryant 0 L. Bryngemark 0 T. Buanes 0 Q. Buat 0 P. Buchholz 0 A. G. Buckley 0 I. A. Budagov 0 F. Buehrer 0 M. K. Bugge 0 O. Bulekov 0 D. Bullock 0 T. J. Burch 0 S. Burdin 0 C. D. Burgard 0 A. M. Burger 0 B. Burghgrave 0 K. Burka 0 S. Burke 0 I. Burmeister 0 J. T. P. Burr 0 E. Busato 0 D. Büscher 0 V. Büscher 0 P. Bussey 0 J. M. Butler 0 C. M. Buttar 0 J. M. Butterworth 0 P. Butti 0 W. Buttinger 0 A. Buzatu 0 A. R. Buzykaev 0 S. Cabrera Urbán 0 D. Caforio 0 V. M. Cairo 0 O. Cakir 0 N. Calace 0 P. Calafiura 0 A. Calandri 0 G. Calderini 0 P. Calfayan 0 G. Callea 0 L. P. Caloba 0 S. Calvente Lopez 0 D. Calvet 0 S. Calvet 0 T. P. Calvet 0 R. Camacho Toro 0 S. Camarda 0 P. Camarri 0 D. Cameron 0 R. Caminal Armadans 0 C. Camincher 0 S. Campana 0 M. Campanelli 0 A. Camplani 0 A. Campoverde 0 V. Canale 0 M. Cano Bret 0 J. Cantero 0 T. Cao 0 M. D. M. Capeans Garrido 0 I. Caprini 0 M. Caprini 0 M. Capua 0 R. M. Carbone 0 R. Cardarelli 0 F. Cardillo 0 I. Carli 0 T. Carli 0 G. Carlino 0 B. T. Carlson 0 L. Carminati 0 R. M. D. Carney 0 S. Caron 0 E. Carquin 0 S. Carrá 0 G. D. Carrillo-Montoya 0 J. Carvalho 0 D. Casadei 0 M. P. Casado 0 M. Casolino 0 D. W. Casper 0 R. Castelijn 0 V. Castillo Gimenez 0 N. F. Castro 0 A. Catinaccio 0 J. R. Catmore 0 A. Cattai 0 J. Caudron 0 V. Cavaliere 0 E. Cavallaro 0 D. Cavalli 0 M. Cavalli-Sforza 0 V. Cavasinni 0 E. Celebi 0 F. Ceradini 0 L. Cerda Alberich 0 A. S. Cerqueira 0 A. Cerri 0 L. Cerrito 0 F. Cerutti 0 A. Cervelli 0 S. A. Cetin 0 A. Chafaq 0 D. Chakraborty 0 S. K. Chan 0 W. S. Chan 0 Y. L. Chan 0 P. Chang 0 J. D. Chapman 0 D. G. Charlton 0 C. C. Chau 0 C. A. Chavez Barajas 0 S. Che 0 S. Cheatham 0 A. Chegwidden 0 S. Chekanov 0 S. V. Chekulaev 0 G. A. Chelkov 0 M. A. Chelstowska 0 C. Chen 0 H. Chen 0 J. Chen 0 S. Chen 0 S. Chen 0 X. Chen 0 Y. Chen 0 H. C. Cheng 0 H. J. Cheng 0 A. Cheplakov 0 E. Cheremushkina 0 R. Cherkaoui El Moursli 0 E. Cheu 0 K. Cheung 0 L. Chevalier 0 V. Chiarella 0 G. Chiarelli 0 G. Chiodini 0 A. S. Chisholm 0 A. Chitan 0 Y. H. Chiu 0 M. V. Chizhov 0 K. Choi 0 A. R. Chomont 0 S. Chouridou 0 V. Christodoulou 0 D. Chromek-Burckhart 0 M. C. Chu 0 J. Chudoba 0 A. J. Chuinard 0 J. J. Chwastowski 0 L. Chytka 0 A. K. Ciftci 0 D. Cinca 0 V. Cindro 0 I. A. Cioara 0 C. Ciocca 0 A. Ciocio 0 F. Cirotto 0 Z. H. Citron 0 M. Citterio 0 M. Ciubancan 0 A. Clark 0 B. L. Clark 0 M. R. Clark 0 P. J. Clark 0 R. N. Clarke 0 C. Clement 0 Y. Coadou 0 M. Cobal 0 A. Coccaro 0 J. Cochran 0 L. Colasurdo 0 B. Cole 0 A. P. Colijn 0 J. Collot 0 T. Colombo 0 P. Conde Muiño 0 E. Coniavitis 0 S. H. Connell 0 I. A. Connelly 0 S. Constantinescu 0 G. Conti 0 F. Conventi 0 M. Cooke 0 A. M. Cooper-Sarkar 0 F. Cormier 0 K. J. R. Cormier 0 M. Corradi 0 F. Corriveau 0 A. Cortes-Gonzalez 0 G. Cortiana 0 G. Costa 0 M. J. Costa 0 D. Costanzo 0 G. Cottin 0 G. Cowan 0 B. E. Cox 0 K. Cranmer 0 S. J. Crawley 0 R. A. Creager 0 G. Cree 0 S. Crépé-Renaudin 0 F. Crescioli 0 W. A. Cribbs 0 M. Cristinziani 0 V. Croft 0 G. Crosetti 0 0 CERN , 1211 Geneva 23 , Switzerland The results of a search for new heavy W bosons decaying to an electron or muon and a neutrino using proton-proton collision data at a centre-of-mass energy of √s = 13 TeV are presented. The dataset was collected in 2015 and 2016 by the ATLAS experiment at the Large Hadron Collider and corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 fb−1. As no excess of events above the Standard Model prediction is observed, the results are used to set upper limits on the W boson cross-section times branching ratio to an electron or muon and a neutrino as a function of the W mass. Assuming a W boson with the same couplings as the Standard Model W boson, W masses below 5.1 TeV are excluded at the 95% confidence level. ATLAS Collaboration 1 Introduction Extensions to the Standard Model (SM) may include heavy gauge bosons that could be discovered at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [ 1 ]. For example, heavy gauge bosons are predicted in left-right symmetric models [ 2,3 ] or in the little Higgs model [ 4 ]. Conceptually, these particles are heavier versions of the SM W and Z bosons and are generically referred to as W and Z bosons. The Sequential Standard Model (SSM) [ 5 ] posits a WSSM boson with couplings to fermions that are identical to those of the SM W boson. This model represents a good benchmark as the results can be interpreted in the context of other models of new physics, and is useful for comparing the sensitivity of different experiments. This paper presents a search for a W boson conducted in the W → ν channel. In the following, the term lepton ( ) is used to refer to an electron or a muon. The analysis uses events with a high transverse momentum1 ( pT) lepton and significant missing transverse momentum E miss, that is used T to infer the presence of the neutrino in the event as it escapes direct detection. It is based on 36.1 fb−1 of pp collision data collected with the ATLAS detector in 2015 and 2016 at a centre-of-mass energy of √s = 13 TeV. The results are interpreted in the context of the SSM. The signal discriminant is the transverse mass, which is defined as mT = √2 pT ETmiss(1 − cos φ ν ), where φ ν is the azimuthal angle between the directions of the lepton pT and the E miss T in the transverse plane. The most stringent limits on the mass of a WSSM boson to date come from the searches in the W → eν and W → μν channels by the ATLAS and CMS collaborations using data taken at √s = 13 TeV in 2015. The ATLAS analysis was based on data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 3.2 fb−1 and sets a 95% confidence level (CL) lower limit on the WSSM mass of 4.07 TeV [ 6 ]. The CMS Collaboration used 2.4 fb−1 of data and excludes WSSM masses below 4.1 TeV at 95% CL [ 7 ]. The sensitivity of the search presented here is significantly improved compared to these earlier searches due to the larger dataset. 2 ATLAS detector The ATLAS experiment [ 8 ] at the LHC is a multipurpose particle detector with a forward-backward symmetric cylindrical geometry and a near 4π coverage in solid angle. It con1 ATLAS uses a right-handed coordinate system with its origin at the nominal interaction point (IP) in the centre of the detector and the z-axis along the beam pipe. The x-axis points from the IP to the centre of the LHC ring, and the y-axis points upward. Cylindrical coordinates (r, φ) are used in the transverse plane, φ being the azimuthal angle around the z-axis. The pseudorapidity is defined in terms of the polar angle θ as η = − ln tan(θ/2). Transverse momentum ( pT) is defined relative to the beam axis and is calculated as pT = p sin(θ) where p is the momentum. sists of an inner detector (ID) for tracking surrounded by a thin superconducting solenoid providing a 2 T axial magnetic field, electromagnetic (EM) and hadronic calorimeters, and a muon spectrometer (MS). The ID covers the pseudorapidity range |η| < 2.5. It consists of a silicon pixel detector including an additional inner layer located at a radius of 3.2 cm since 2015 [ 9 ], followed by silicon microstrip and transition radiation tracking detectors. Lead/liquid-argon (LAr) sampling calorimeters provide EM energy measurements with high granularity. A hadronic (steel/scintillator-tile) calorimeter covers the central pseudorapidity range (|η| < 1.7). The endcap and forward regions are instrumented with LAr calorimeters for both the EM and hadronic energy measurements up to |η| = 4.9. The muon spectrometer surrounds the calorimeters and is based on three large air-core toroidal superconducting magnets with eight coils each. The field integral experienced by tracks in the toroidal field ranges between 2.0 and 6.0 T m for most pseudorapidities. The MS includes a system of precision tracking chambers, over |η| < 2.7, and fast detectors for triggering, over |η| < 2.4. A two-level trigger system is used to select events [ 10 ]. The first-level trigger is implemented in hardware and uses a subset of the detector information. This is followed by a software-based trigger system that reduces the accepted event rate to less than 1 kHz. 3 Analysis strategy and modelling of signal and background processes A W signal would appear as an excess of events above the SM background at high mT. The SM background mainly arises from processes with at least one prompt final-state lepton, with the largest source being the charged-current Drell– Yan (DY) W boson production, where the W boson decays into an electron or muon and a neutrino. The second largest source is top-quark pair (t t¯) and single-top-quark production, denoted in the following as “top-quark background”. Other non-negligible contributions are from the neutral-current DY (Z /γ ∗) process, diboson production, as well as from events in which one final-state jet or photon satisfies the lepton selection criteria. This last component of the background, referred to in the following as the multijet background, receives contributions from multijet, heavy-flavour quark and γ + jet production. The multijet background is determined using a datadriven method, while the other backgrounds are modelled by Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The backgrounds from W → ν, Z /γ ∗ → , W → τ ν, and Z /γ ∗ → τ τ were simulated using the PowhegBox v2 [ 11 ] matrix-element calculation up to next-toleading order (NLO) in perturbative quantum chromodynamics (pQCD), interfaced to the Pythia 8.186 [ 12 ] parton shower model and using the CT10 parton distribution function (PDF) set [ 13 ]. The final-state photon radiation (QED FSR) was modelled by the Photos [ 14 ] MC simulation. The samples are normalised as a function of the boson invariant mass to a next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) pQCD calculation using the numerical programme VRAP which is based on Ref. [ 15 ] and the CT14NNLO PDF set [ 16 ]. Compared to the NLO prediction using CT10, the NNLO prediction using CT14 gives a higher cross-section by about 5% at a boson invariant mass of 1 TeV and 10% at 5 TeV. In addition to the modelling of QED FSR, a fixed-order electroweak (EW) correction to NLO is calculated as a function of the boson mass with the Mcsanc [ 17,18 ] event generator at leading order (LO) in pQCD. This correction is added to the NNLO QCD cross-section prediction in the so-called additive approach (see Sect. 6.2) because of a lack of calculations of mixed QCD and EW terms, and lowers the predicted cross-section by an increasing amount as function of the mass, reaching about 10% at 1 TeV and 20% at 5 TeV. The W → ν and Z /γ ∗ → events were simulated as multiple samples covering different ranges of the boson invariant mass. This ensures that a large number of MC events is available across the entire mT region probed in this analysis. The background from t t¯ production was generated using Powheg-Box v2, with parton showering and hadronisation modelled by Pythia 6.428 [ 19 ], using the CT10 PDF set. The t t¯ cross-section is normalised to σtt¯ = 832 pb as calculated with the Top++2.0 program at NNLO in pQCD, including soft-gluon resummation to next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic accuracy (see Ref. [ 20 ] and references therein). The top-quark mass is set to 172.5 GeV. The single-top-quark production in the W t channel and EW t -channel was simulated using the same event generators and PDF sets as for the t t¯ process, with the exception that the Powheg-Box v1 program was used for producing events in the t -channel. Diboson events were simulated with the Sherpa 2.1.1 [ 21 ] event generator using the CT10 PDF set. As the simulated top-quark and diboson samples are statistically limited at large mT, the expected number of events from each of these backgrounds is extrapolated into the high-mT region. This is achieved by fitting the lower part of the mT distributions to functions of the form F (x ) = a x b+c log x and F (x ) = d/(x + e)g, where x = mT/√s, and using the fitted function to predict the background at higher mT. Various fit ranges are used, which typically start between 140 and 360 GeV and extend up to 500–1300 GeV. The fits with the best χ 2/d.o.f. are used for the extrapolation and the results of these fits are used in the high-mT tail. The multijet background is estimated from data using the same data-driven matrix method as used in the previous ATLAS analysis [ 6 ]. The first step of the matrix method is to calculate the fraction f of lepton candidates that pass the nominal lepton identification and isolation requirements (tight), with respect to a sample of loose lepton candidates in a background-enriched sample. These loosely selected candidates satisfy only a subset of the nominal criteria, which is stricter than the trigger requirements imposed. Potential contamination of prompt final-state leptons in the backgroundenriched sample is accounted for using MC simulation. In addition, the fraction r of real leptons in the sample of loose candidates satisfying the nominal requirements is used. This fraction is computed from MC simulation. The number of jets and photons misidentified as leptons (NTmultijet) in the total number of candidates passing the signal selection (NT) is N multijet T f = f NF = r − f ( r (NL + NT) − NT) , (1) where NF is the number of fake leptons and NL corresponds to leptons that pass the loose requirements but fail the nominal requirements. As this background estimate is statistically limited at large mT, the expected number of events is extrapolated into the high-mT region using a method similar to that for the diboson and top-quark backgrounds. The SSM signal W → eν and W → μν samples were generated at LO in QCD using the Pythia 8.183 event generator and the NNPDF2.3 LO PDF set [ 22 ]. As assumed in the SSM, the couplings to fermions are equal to those of the SM W boson. The W boson is assumed not to couple to the SM W and Z bosons and interference between the W and the SM W boson production amplitudes is neglected. The decay W → τ ν, where the τ subsequently decays leptonically, is not treated as part of the signal as this contribution was quantified previously and found to give a negligible contribution to the sensitivity [ 23 ]. Mass-dependent correction factors are applied to normalise the samples to the same massdependent NNLO pQCD calculation as used for the W background. Compared to the LO prediction using NNPDF2.3 LO, the corrections increase the cross-section by about 40% around a boson invariant mass of 1–2 TeV, and by about 10% at 5 TeV. Further EW corrections beyond QED FSR are not considered for the signal. The resulting cross-sections times branching ratio for WSSM masses of 3, 4 and 5 TeV are 15.3, 2.25 and 0.51 fb, respectively. For these W masses the branching ratio to each lepton generation from Pythia is 8.2%. The MC samples were processed through a simulation of the detector geometry and response [ 24 ] using the Geant4 [25] framework. The software used for the reconstruction is the same for both simulated and real data. The average number of pile-up interactions (additional pp collisions in the same or a nearby bunch crossing) observed in the data is about 23. The effect of pile-up is modelled by overlaying simulated inelastic pp collision events selected using very loose trigger requirements (“minimum bias”). All MC samples are reweighted so that the distribution of the number of collisions per bunch crossing matches the data. Correction factors to account for differences observed in the detector response between data and simulation are applied to the lepton trigger, reconstruction, identification [ 26,27 ] and isolation efficiencies as well as the lepton energy/momentum resolutions and scales [ 27,28 ]. 4 Event reconstruction The analysis makes use of electrons, muons, and missing transverse momentum, whose reconstruction and identification are explained in the following. Electrons are reconstructed from ID tracks that are matched to energy clusters in the electromagnetic calorimeter obtained using a sliding-window algorithm in the range |η| < 2.47. Candidates in the transition region between different electromagnetic calorimeter components, 1.37 < |η| < 1.52, are rejected. Electrons must satisfy identification criteria based on measurements of shower shapes in the calorimeter and measurements of track properties from the ID combined in a likelihood discriminant. Depending on the desired level of background rejection, loose, medium and tight working points are defined. Full details of the electron reconstruction, identification and selection working points can be found in Ref. [ 26 ]. Muon candidates are identified from MS tracks that match tracks in the ID, with |η| < 2.5 [ 27 ]. These muons are required to pass a track quality selection based on the number of hits in the ID. They are rejected if the absolute value of the difference between their charge-to-momentum ratios measured in the ID and MS divided by the sum in quadrature of the corresponding uncertainties is large. To ensure optimal muon resolution at high pT, additional requirements are imposed on the quality of the MS track. The track is required to have at least three hits in each of the three separate layers of MS chambers. Furthermore, to avoid pT mismeasurements, muons are removed if they cross either poorly aligned MS chambers, or regions in which the ID and the MS are not well aligned relative to one another. The ID tracks associated with electron and muon candidates are required to be consistent with originating from the primary interaction vertex, which is defined as the vertex whose constituent tracks have the highest sum of pT2. The transverse impact parameter with respect to the beam line, d0, divided by its estimated uncertainty must satisfy |d0|/σ (d0) < 5 (3) for electrons (muons). For muons, the longitudinal impact parameter, which is the distance between the z-position of the point of closest approach of the muon track in the ID to the beamline and the z-coordinate of the primary vertex, must fulfil | z0| × sin θ < 0.5 mm. Both the electrons and muons are required to be isolated with respect to other particles in the event. The sum of the pT of tracks that fall inside an isolation cone around the lepton (excluding the track of the lepton itself) divided by the lepton pT has to be below a pT-dependent threshold. The isolation cone size R = ( η)2 + ( φ)2 is defined as 10 GeV divided by the lepton pT and the cone has a maximum size of R = 0.3 for muons and R = 0.2 for electrons. For electrons, calorimeter-based isolation is also required. The sum of the calorimeter transverse energy deposits in an isolation cone of fixed size R = 0.2 (excluding the energy deposits of the electron itself) divided by the electron pT is used as the discriminating variable. The calorimeter- and track-based isolation criteria depend on pT and η, and are optimised for an overall efficiency of 98% (99%) for electrons (muons). The missing transverse momentum is reconstructed as the negative vectorial sum of the calibrated momenta of electrons, muons and jets, where the electrons and muons are required to satisfy the selection criteria described above [ 29 ]. The jets used in the calculation are reconstructed in the region |η| < 4.9 from topological clusters [ 30 ] in the calorimeter using the anti-kt algorithm [ 31 ] with a radius parameter of 0.4. They are calibrated using the method described in Ref. [ 32 ] and are required to have pT > 20 GeV. The computation of E miss also includes tracks associated with the T primary vertex from activity not associated with electrons, muons or jets. 5 Event selection and background estimation Events in the muon channel were recorded by a trigger requiring that at least one muon with pT > 50 GeV is found. These muons must be reconstructed in both the MS and the ID. In the electron channel during the 2015 (2016) data-taking period, events were recorded by a trigger requiring at least one electron with pT > 24 (60) GeV which satisfied the medium identification criteria, or at least one electron with pT > 120 (140) GeV which satisfied the loose identification criteria. The identification criteria for electrons at trigger level are similar to those used in the offline reconstruction [ 26 ]. Events recorded by the trigger are further selected by requiring that they contain exactly one lepton. In the muon channel, the magnitude of E miss must exceed 55 GeV and T the muon has to fulfil the tight requirements for high- pT muons detailed in Sect. 4 and have pT > 55 GeV. In the electron channel, the electron must satisfy the tight identification criteria, and the electron pT and the magnitude of E miss must both exceed 65 GeV. Events in both channels T are vetoed if they contain additional leptons satisfying loosened selection criteria, namely electrons with pT > 20 GeV satisfying the medium identification criteria or muons with pT > 20 GeV passing the muon selection without the stringent requirements on the MS track quality. In addition, the transverse mass is required to exceed 110 (130) GeV in the muon (electron) channel. The acceptance times efficiency, defined as the fraction of simulated signal events that pass the event selection described above, is 50% (47%) for the muon channel and 81% (77%) for the electron channel for a W mass of 2 TeV (4 TeV). The difference in lepton sensitivity results from lower muon trigger efficiency and, due to the very strict muon selection criteria applied, a lower muon identification efficiency. The expected number of background events is calculated as the sum of the data-driven and simulated background estimates described in Sect. 3. Figure 1 displays the mT distribution in the electron and muon channels. The expected and observed number of events for some wider mT ranges are shown also in Table 1. For all values of mT, the background is dominated by W → ν production, which constitutes about 85% of the total background at mT > 1 TeV. As examples, Fig. 1 also shows the expected signal distributions for three assumed WSSM boson masses on top of the SM prediction. The effect of the momentum resolution is clearly visible when comparing the shapes of the three reconstructed WSSM signals in the electron and muon channels. The middle panels of Fig. 1 show the ratio of the data to the SM predictions. The data are systematically above the predicted background at low mT, but still within the total systematic uncertainty, which is dominated by the E miss-related systematic uncer T tainties in this region. The bottom panels of Fig. 1 show the ratio of the data to the adjusted background that results from a common fit to the electron and muon channels within the statistical analysis described in Sect. 7. This ratio agrees well with unity. 6 Systematic uncertainties The systematic uncertainties arise from experimental and theoretical sources. They are summarised in Table 2 and described in the following subsections. 6.1 Uncertainties from the reconstruction of electrons, muons, and E miss T Experimental systematic uncertainties arise from the trigger, reconstruction, identification and isolation efficiencies for leptons [ 26, 27 ], and the calculation of the missing transverse momentum [ 29 ]. They include also the effects of the energy and momentum scale and resolution uncertainties [ 27, 28, 32 ]. The electron and muon offline reconstruction, identification and isolation efficiencies, and their respective uncertainties, are assessed up to pT ≈ 100 GeV using leptonic decays of Z boson candidates found in data. The ratio of the tsn 107 e v E 106 105 104 103 102 10 1 to the expected background, with vertical bars representing both data and MC statistical uncertainties. The lower panels show the ratios of the data to the adjusted expected background (“post-fit”) that results from the statistical analysis. The bands in the ratio plots indicate the sum in quadrature of the systematic uncertainties discussed in Sect. 6, including the uncertainty in the integrated luminosity tainties given are the combined statistical and systematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainty includes all systematic uncertainties except the one from the integrated luminosity (3.2%) Electron channel mT (GeV) Total SM W (2 TeV) W (3 TeV) W (4 TeV) W (5 TeV) Data Muon channel mT (GeV) Total SM W (2 TeV) W (3 TeV) W (4 TeV) W (5 TeV) Table 2 Systematic uncertainties in the expected number of events as estimated for the total background and for signal with a WSSM mass of 2 (4) TeV. The uncertainty is estimated with the binning shown in Fig. 1 at mT = 2 (4) TeV for the background and in a three-bin window around mT = 2 (4) TeV for the signal. Uncertainties that are not applicable are denoted “n/a”, and “negl.” means that the uncertainty is not included in the statistical analysis. Sources of uncertainties not included in the table are neglected in the statistical analysis efficiency measured in data to that of the MC simulation is then used to correct the MC prediction [ 26, 27 ]. For higherpT electrons, an additional uncertainty of 1.5% is estimated for the tight identification working point. This uncertainty is based on the differences observed in the electron shower shapes in the EM calorimeters between data and MC simulation around the Z → ee mass peak, which are propagated to the high-ET electron sample. For the isolation efficiencies, an uncertainty of 2 and 5% is estimated for 150 < pT < 500 GeV and above 500 GeV, respectively, using Z /γ ∗ candidates in data. For the identification of high- pT muons, the uncertainty is determined conservatively from simulation studies and amounts to 2–3% per TeV. For the isolation criterion, the uncertainty associated with the extrapolation to high- pT muons is estimated to be 1%. Systematic uncertainties related to the electron trigger are negligible. For the muon trigger the systematic uncertainty is estimated using the same methodology as in Ref. [ 33 ], which results in an overall uncertainty of about 2%. The main systematic uncertainties in E miss arise from T the jet energy resolution uncertainties [ 32 ] and the contribution from tracks originating from the primary vertex and arising from activity not associated with electrons, muons or jets [ 29 ]. The uncertainties due to the jet energy and E miss resolutions are small at large mT, while they are the T dominant contributions to the total uncertainty at small mT. The jet energy scale uncertainties are found to be negligible. Signal negl. (negl.) negl. (negl.) 4% (3%) < 0.5% (< 0.5%) < 0.5% (< 0.5%) 1% (< 0.5%) n/a (n/a) n/a (n/a) n/a (n/a) n/a (n/a) n/a (n/a) n/a (n/a) 3% (3%) 5% (5%) Muon channel Background 2% (2%) 5% (6%) 3% (9%) < 0.5% (1%) < 0.5% (< 0.5%) < 0.5% (1%) 1% (1%) 4% (8%) 4% (10%) < 0.5% (1%) 7% (11%) 4% (5%) 3% (3%) 12% (21%) Signal 2% (2%) 5% (7%) 1% (1%) 1% (1%) < 0.5% (< 0.5%) 1% (< 0.5%) n/a (n/a) n/a (n/a) n/a (n/a) n/a (n/a) n/a (n/a) n/a (n/a) 3% (3%) 6% (8%) 6.2 Theoretical uncertainties Theoretical uncertainties are related to the production crosssections estimated from MC simulation. The effects when propagated to the total background estimate are significant for W and Z /γ ∗ production, but negligible for top-quark and diboson production. No theoretical uncertainties are considered for the W boson signal in the statistical analysis. Theoretical uncertainties in the W and Z /γ ∗ background prediction arise from the PDF uncertainties, the value of the strong coupling constant αs, and higher-order corrections. The dominant effect comes from the PDF uncertainty, which is obtained from the 90% CL CT14NNLO PDF uncertainty set using VRAP to calculate the NNLO cross-section as a function of the boson mass. Rather than using the original 28 CT14 uncertainty eigenvectors, a re-diagonalised set of seven PDF eigenvectors, as provided by the authors of the CT14 PDF using MP4LHC [ 34, 35 ], is used. The crosssection variation associated with each of these eigenvectors has a characteristic mass dependence and the sum in quadrature of these eigenvector variations matches the original CT14NNLO uncertainty envelope well. This sum is shown as “PDF variation” in Table 2. An additional uncertainty is derived to account for the choice of the nominal PDF set used. The central values of the CT14NNLO PDF set are compared to the MMHT2014 [ 36 ] and NNPDF3.0 [ 37 ] PDF sets. A comparison between these PDF sets shows that the central value for NNPDF3.0 falls outside the “PDF variation” uncertainty at large mT. Thus, an envelope of the “PDF variation” and the NNPDF3.0 central value is formed, where the former is subtracted in quadrature from this envelope, and the remaining part, which is non-zero only when the NNPDF3.0 central value is outside the “PDF variation” uncertainty, is quoted as “PDF choice”. The PDF uncertainties are the same at the generator level for the electron and muon channels, but result in different uncertainties at reconstruction level. The uncertainty is larger in the electron channel due to the better energy resolution: there is less migration of events with low generator-level invariant mass, where the PDF uncertainty is smaller, into the high-mT region in this channel. Uncertainties in the electroweak corrections are determined as the difference between the additive approach (1 + δEW + δQCD) and a factorised approach ((1 + δEW) × (1 + δQCD)) for the EW corrections in the combination of higherorder EW (δEW) and QCD (δQCD) effects. Uncertainties due to higher-order QCD corrections on the Z /γ ∗ process are estimated by varying the renormalisation and factorisation scales simultaneously up or down by a factor of two. The uncertainty due to αs is assessed by changing the value of αs by as much as 0.003 from the nominal value αs(m Z ) = 0.118 used by the CT14NNLO PDF set. The uncertainties from the scales and αs are both found to be negligible. Theoretical uncertainties are also considered for the topquark and diboson backgrounds. An uncertainty in the t t¯ cross-section of +−2209 pb arises from the independent variation of the factorisation and renormalisation scales, while an uncertainty of ±35 pb is associated with variations in the PDF and αs, following the PDF4LHC prescription (see Ref. [ 38 ] and references therein) with the MSTW2008 68% CL NNLO [ 39 ], CT10 NNLO [ 40 ] and NNPDF2.3 NNLO [ 22 ] PDF sets. As this background constitutes only a small fraction of the overall background, these normalisation uncertainties are negligible. Furthermore, the modelling of the top-quark background is found to be adequate in a data control region defined by requiring the presence of an additional muon (electron) in events passing the electron (muon) selection. For the diboson background, the theoretical normalisation uncertainty is conservatively taken to be 30%, and this has a negligible effect due to the small contribution of this background. 6.3 Background modelling uncertainties The dominant systematic uncertainties in the multijet, topquark and diboson backgrounds at high mT are due to the extrapolations. These uncertainties are evaluated by varying both the functional form of the fit functions and the fit range as detailed in Sect. 3. The envelope of all variations is assigned for the uncertainty. This results in the largest source of background-related systematic uncertainty at large mT values in this analysis. The multijet background uncertainty in the electron (muon) channel includes a 15% (100%) normalisation uncertainty. This uncertainty is dominated by the dependence of the factor f (see Sect. 3) on the selection requirements used for the background-enriched sample definition. For the mT region below 700–800 GeV, for which there are not many more MC events than data events, the MC statistical uncertainty is accounted for in the analysis. The modelling of the pile-up especially affects the calculation of E miss. A pile-up modelling uncertainty is estimated T by varying the distribution of pile-up events in the reweighting of the MC, as detailed in Sect. 3, to cover the uncertainty on the ratio between the predicted and measured inelastic cross-sections [ 41 ]. 6.4 Luminosity The uncertainty in the combined 2015 and 2016 integrated luminosity is 3.2%. Following a methodology similar to that detailed in Ref. [ 42 ], it is derived from a preliminary calibration of the luminosity scale using x –y beam-separation scans performed in August 2015 and May 2016. 7 Results For the statistical analysis of the results presented in this section, the same methodology is applied as in the previous ATLAS W search [ 6 ] and is described briefly here. The compatibility between the data and the predicted background is evaluated with a profile-likelihood ratio test quantifying the probability that the background fluctuates to give a signal-like excess equal to or larger than what is observed. The likelihood functions in the ratio are products of Poisson probabilities over all bins in the transverse mass distribution (as shown in Fig. 1) and log-normal constraints for the variations in signal and background yields associated with systematic uncertainties. In the denominator of the likelihood ratio, the likelihood function is maximised assuming the presence of a signal above the expected background, and in the numerator assuming the background-only hypothesis. To model the signal, WSSM templates binned in mT are used for a series of WSSM masses in the search range 150 GeV ≤ mW ≤ 6000 GeV. Figure 1 displays a few examples of these templates. No significant excesses are observed in the data. The most significant excess is at mW = 350 GeV in the electron channel, with a local significance of 2.0σ . In the muon channel, the most significant excess is at high mass, with a maximum local significance of 1.8σ at mW ≈ 5 TeV. These excesses correspond to a global significance of 0.1σ in each channel when the look-elsewhere effect [43] is taken into account. ATLAS s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1 W' → eν 95% CL ATLAS s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1 W' → μν 95% CL ATLAS s = 13 TeV, 36.1 fb-1 W' → lν 95% CL 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 (a) 3 (b) 3 (c) ]b 10 p [) ν '→e 1 W ( R ×B10−1 ) ' W →p10−2 p ( σ Expected limit Expected ± 1σ Expected ± 2σ Observed limit W'SSM 5 6 mW' [TeV] Expected limit Expected ± 1σ Expected ± 2σ Observed limit W'SSM 5 6 mW' [TeV] Expected limit Expected ± 1σ Expected ± 2σ Observed limit W'SSM 5 6 mW' [TeV] Based on the above findings, upper limits on the crosssection for producing a WSSM boson times its branching ratio to only one lepton generation (σ × BR) are computed at the 95% CL as a function of the WSSM boson mass. The limits are calculated in a Bayesian analysis [ 44 ] with a uniform positive prior probability distribution for σ × BR. The observed upper limits are extracted by comparing data to the expected background and signal using WSSM templates for the same range of signal masses as for the profile-likelihood ratio test. The expected limits are derived from pseudo-experiments obtained from the estimated background distributions. The median of the distribution of the limits from the pseudoexperiments is taken as the expected limit, and 1σ and 2σ bands are defined as the ranges containing respectively 68 and 95% of the limits obtained with the pseudo-experiments. The 95% CL upper limits on σ × BR as a function of the WSSM mass are shown in Fig. 2 separately for the electron and muon channels and for the combination of the two channels. The theoretical uncertainties and the uncertainties in E miss, jet energy resolution and luminosity are treated as T correlated between the channels. The expected upper limit on σ × BR is stronger in the electron channel. This results from the larger acceptance times efficiency and the better momentum resolution (see Sect. 5). Figure 2 also shows the predicted σ × BR for the WSSM boson as a function of its mass as well as the uncertainties from the PDF, αs and the factorisation and renormalisation scales derived using the same prescription as used for the W boson production. The observed (expected) lower mass limit for a WSSM boson, as summarised in Table 3, is 5.1 (5.2) TeV for the combination of the electron and muon channels. This corresponds to an improvement of approximately 1 TeV in mass reach compared to the previous ATLAS analysis [ 6 ], which was based on a subset of the data used in this analysis. 8 Conclusion The results of a search for a new heavy gauge boson decaying to final states with a high- pT electron or muon and large missing transverse momentum are reported. The analysis uses 36.1 fb−1 of √s = 13 TeV pp collision data recorded by the ATLAS detector at the Large Hadron Collider in 2015 and 2016. Examining the transverse mass spectrum, no significant excess above the expected Standard Model background is observed. Exclusion limits at 95% CL are placed on the mass of benchmark Sequential Standard Model W bosons. Masses for WSSM bosons up to 5.1 TeV are excluded by the combination of the electron and muon channels. This exceeds the previous limit from ATLAS, derived from a similar analysis based on 3.2 fb−1 of √s = 13 TeV data, by 1 TeV. Acknowledgements We thank CERN for the very successful operation of the LHC, as well as the support staff from our institutions without whom ATLAS could not be operated efficiently. We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWFW and FWF, Austria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI, Canada; CERN; CONICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC, China; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia; MSMT CR, MPO CR and VSC CR, Czech Republic; DNRF and DNSRC, Denmark; IN2P3-CNRS, CEADRF/IRFU, France; SRNSF, Georgia; BMBF, HGF, and MPG, Germany; GSRT, Greece; RGC, Hong Kong SAR, China; ISF, I-CORE and Benoziyo Center, Israel; INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Morocco; NWO, Netherlands; RCN, Norway; MNiSW and NCN, Poland; FCT, Portugal; MNE/IFA, Romania; MES of Russia and NRC KI, Russian Federation; JINR; MESTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MIZŠ, Slovenia; DST/NRF, South Africa; MINECO, Spain; SRC and Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SERI, SNSF and Cantons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; MOST, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United States of America. In addition, individual groups and members have received support from BCKDF, the Canada Council, CANARIE, CRC, Compute Canada, FQRNT, and the Ontario Innovation Trust, Canada; EPLANET, ERC, ERDF, FP7, Horizon 2020 and Marie SkłodowskaCurie Actions, European Union; Investissements d’Avenir Labex and Idex, ANR, Région Auvergne and Fondation Partager le Savoir, France; DFG and AvH Foundation, Germany; Herakleitos, Thales and Aristeia programmes co-financed by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; BSF, GIF and Minerva, Israel; BRF, Norway; CERCA Programme Generalitat de Catalunya, Generalitat Valenciana, Spain; the Royal Society and Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom. The crucial computing support from all WLCG partners is acknowledged gratefully, in particular from CERN, the ATLAS Tier-1 facilities at TRIUMF (Canada), NDGF (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), CCIN2P3 (France), KIT/GridKA (Germany), INFN-CNAF (Italy), NLT1 (Netherlands), PIC (Spain), ASGC (Taiwan), RAL (UK) and BNL (USA), the Tier-2 facilities worldwide and large non-WLCG resource providers. Major contributors of computing resources are listed in Ref. [ 45 ]. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecomm ons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Funded by SCOAP3. ATLAS Collaboration M. Aaboud137d, G. Aad88, B. Abbott115, O. Abdinov12,*, B. Abeloos119, R. Abreu118, S. H. Abidi161, Y. Abulaiti148a,148b, N. L. Abraham151, H. Abramowicz155, H. Abreu154, B. S. Acharya167a,167b,a, S. Adachi157, L. Adamczyk41a, J. Adelman110, M. Adersberger102, T. Adye133, A. A. Affolder139, T. Agatonovic-Jovin14, B. M. M. Allbrooke151, B. W. Allen118, P. P. Allport19, A. Aloisio106a,106b, A. Alonso39, F. Alonso74, C. Alpigiani140, A. A. Alshehri56, M. Alstaty88, B. Alvarez Gonzalez32, D. Álvarez Piqueras170, M. G. Alviggi106a,106b, B. T. Amadio16, M. Aoki69, L. Aperio Bella32, V. Araujo Ferraz26a, A. T. H. Arce48, M. Arik20a, A. J. Armbruster32, L. J. Armitage79, O. Arnaez161, H. Arnold51, M. Arratia30, O. Arslan23, A. Artamonov99, G. Artoni122, S. Artz86, S. Asai157, N. Asbah45, A. Ashkenazi155, L. Asquith151, K. Assamagan27, 1 Department of Physics, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia 38 Nevis Laboratory, Columbia University, Irvington, NY, USA 39 Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark 40 (a)INFN Gruppo Collegato di Cosenza, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy; (b)Dipartimento di Fisica, Università della Calabria, Rende, Italy 41 (a)Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science, AGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków, Poland; (b)Marian Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland 42 Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland 43 Physics Department, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA 44 Physics Department, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA 45 DESY, Hamburg and Zeuthen, Germany 46 Lehrstuhl für Experimentelle Physik IV, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany 47 Institut für Kern- und Teilchenphysik, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany 48 Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA 49 SUPA-School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK 50 INFN e Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, Frascati, Italy 51 Fakultät für Mathematik und Physik, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg, Germany 52 Departement de Physique Nucleaire et Corpusculaire, Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland 53 (a)INFN Sezione di Genova, Genoa, Italy; (b)Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Genova, Genoa, Italy 54 (a)E. Andronikashvili Institute of Physics, Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia; (b)High Energy Physics Institute, Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia 55 II Physikalisches Institut, Justus-Liebig-Universität Giessen, Giessen, Germany 56 SUPA-School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK 57 II Physikalisches Institut, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany 58 Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, Université Grenoble-Alpes, CNRS/IN2P3, Grenoble, France 59 Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA 60 (a)Kirchhoff-Institut für Physik, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany; (b)Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany 61 Faculty of Applied Information Science, Hiroshima Institute of Technology, Hiroshima, Japan 62 (a)Department of Physics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong; (b)Department of Physics, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China; (c)Department of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Clear Water Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China 63 Department of Physics, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan, Taiwan 64 Department of Physics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA 65 Institut für Astro- und Teilchenphysik, Leopold-Franzens-Universität, Innsbruck, Austria 66 University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA 67 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA 68 Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, JINR Dubna, Dubna, Russia 69 KEK, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization, Tsukuba, Japan 70 Graduate School of Science, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan 71 Faculty of Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan 72 Kyoto University of Education, Kyoto, Japan 73 Research Center for Advanced Particle Physics and Department of Physics, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan 74 Instituto de Física La Plata, Universidad Nacional de La Plata and CONICET, La Plata, Argentina 75 Physics Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK 76 (a)INFN Sezione di Lecce, Lecce, Italy; (b)Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Università del Salento, Lecce, Italy 77 Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK 78 Department of Experimental Particle Physics, Jožef Stefan Institute and Department of Physics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia 79 School of Physics and Astronomy, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK 80 Department of Physics, Royal Holloway University of London, Surrey, UK 81 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London, London, UK 82 Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA, USA Page 20 of 23 83 Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire et de Hautes Energies, UPMC and Université Paris-Diderot and CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France 84 Fysiska institutionen, Lunds universitet, Lund, Sweden 85 Departamento de Fisica Teorica C-15, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain 86 Institut für Physik, Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany 87 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK 88 CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université and CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France 89 Department of Physics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA 90 Department of Physics, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada 91 School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 92 Department of Physics, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA 93 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA 94 (a)INFN Sezione di Milano, Milan, Italy; (b)Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Milano, Milan, Italy 95 B.I. Stepanov Institute of Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Minsk, Republic of Belarus 96 Research Institute for Nuclear Problems of Byelorussian State University, Minsk, Republic of Belarus 97 Group of Particle Physics, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada 98 P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia 99 Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia 100 National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow, Russia 101 D.V. Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia 102 Fakultät für Physik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich, Germany 103 Max-Planck-Institut für Physik (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut), Munich, Germany 104 Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, Nagasaki, Japan 105 Graduate School of Science and Kobayashi-Maskawa Institute, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan 106 (a)INFN Sezione di Napoli, Naples, Italy; (b)Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Napoli, Naples, Italy 107 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA 108 Institute for Mathematics, Astrophysics and Particle Physics, Radboud University Nijmegen/Nikhef, Nijmegen, The Netherlands 109 Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 110 Department of Physics, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA 111 Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, SB RAS, Novosibirsk, Russia 112 Department of Physics, New York University, New York, NY, USA 113 Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA 114 Faculty of Science, Okayama University, Okayama, Japan 115 Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA 116 Department of Physics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA 117 Palacký University, RCPTM, Olomouc, Czech Republic 118 Center for High Energy Physics, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA 119 LAL, Univ. Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France 120 Graduate School of Science, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan 121 Department of Physics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway 122 Department of Physics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK 123 (a)INFN Sezione di Pavia, Pavia, Italy; (b)Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy 124 Department of Physics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA 125 National Research Centre “Kurchatov Institute” B.P. Konstantinov Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia 126 (a)INFN Sezione di Pisa, Pisa, Italy; (b)Dipartimento di Fisica E. Fermi, Università di Pisa, Pisa, Italy 127 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA 128 (a)Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas-LIP, Lisbon, Portugal; (b)Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal; (c)Department of Physics, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal; (d)Centro de Física Nuclear da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal; (e)Departamento de Fisica, Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal; (f)Departamento de Fisica Teorica y del Cosmos and CAFPE, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain; (g)Dep Fisica and CEFITEC of Faculdade de Ciencias e Tecnologia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Caparica, Portugal 129 Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic 130 Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic 131 Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic 132 State Research Center Institute for High Energy Physics (Protvino), NRC KI, Protvino, Russia 133 Particle Physics Department, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, UK 134 (a)INFN Sezione di Roma, Rome, Italy; (b)Dipartimento di Fisica, Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome, Italy 135 (a)INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy; (b)Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Roma Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy 136 (a)INFN Sezione di Roma Tre, Rome, Italy; (b)Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Università Roma Tre, Rome, Italy 137 (a)Faculté des Sciences Ain Chock, Réseau Universitaire de Physique des Hautes Energies-Université Hassan II, Casablanca, Morocco; (b)Centre National de l’Energie des Sciences Techniques Nucleaires, Rabat, Morocco; (c)Faculté des Sciences Semlalia, Université Cadi Ayyad, LPHEA-Marrakech, Marrakech, Morocco; (d)Faculté des Sciences, Université Mohamed Premier and LPTPM, Oujda, Morocco; (e)Faculté des Sciences, Université Mohammed V, Rabat, Morocco 138 DSM/IRFU (Institut de Recherches sur les Lois Fondamentales de l’Univers), CEA Saclay (Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique et aux Energies Alternatives), Gif-sur-Yvette, France 139 Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA 140 Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA 141 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK 142 Department of Physics, Shinshu University, Nagano, Japan 143 Department Physik, Universität Siegen, Siegen, Germany 144 Department of Physics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada 145 SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford, CA, USA 146 (a)Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic; (b)Department of Subnuclear Physics, Institute of Experimental Physics of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Kosice, Slovak Republic 147 (a)Department of Physics, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa; (b)Department of Physics, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa; (c)School of Physics, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa 148 (a)Department of Physics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; (b)The Oskar Klein Centre, Stockholm, Sweden 149 Physics Department, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden 150 Departments of Physics and Astronomy and Chemistry, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA 151 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK 152 School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia 153 Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan 154 Department of Physics, Technion: Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel 155 Raymond and Beverly Sackler School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel 156 Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloníki, Greece 157 International Center for Elementary Particle Physics and Department of Physics, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan 158 Graduate School of Science and Technology, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo, Japan 159 Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan 160 Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia 161 Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada 162 (a)INFN-TIFPA, Trento, Italy; (b)University of Trento, Trento, Italy 163 (a)TRIUMF, Vancouver, BC, Canada; (b)Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada 164 Faculty of Pure and Applied Sciences, and Center for Integrated Research in Fundamental Science and Engineering, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan 165 Department of Physics and Astronomy, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA 166 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA 167 (a)INFN Gruppo Collegato di Udine, Sezione di Trieste, Udine, Italy; (b)ICTP, Trieste, Italy; (c)Dipartimento di Chimica, Fisica e Ambiente, Università di Udine, Udine, Italy 168 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Uppsala, Uppsala, Sweden Page 22 of 23 169 Department of Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA 170 Instituto de Fisica Corpuscular (IFIC), Centro Mixto Universidad de Valencia-CSIC, Valencia, Spain 171 Department of Physics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada 172 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada 173 Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK 174 Waseda University, Tokyo, Japan 175 Department of Particle Physics, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel 176 Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA 177 Fakultät für Physik und Astronomie, Julius-Maximilians-Universität, Würzburg, Germany 178 Fakultät für Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften, Fachgruppe Physik, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany 179 Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA 180 Yerevan Physics Institute, Yerevan, Armenia 181 Centre de Calcul de l’Institut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des Particules (IN2P3), Villeurbanne, France 182 Academia Sinica Grid Computing, Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan a Also at Department of Physics, King’s College London, London, UK b Also at Institute of Physics, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, Baku, Azerbaijan c Also at Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia d Also at TRIUMF, Vancouver, BC, Canada e Also at Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA f Also at Physics Department, An-Najah National University, Nablus, Palestine g Also at Department of Physics, California State University, Fresno, CA, USA h Also at Department of Physics, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland i Also at II Physikalisches Institut, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen, Germany j Also at Departament de Fisica de la Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain k Also at Departamento de Fisica e Astronomia, Faculdade de Ciencias, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal l Also at Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia m Also at The Collaborative Innovation Center of Quantum Matter (CICQM), Beijing, China n Also at Universita di Napoli Parthenope, Napoli, Italy o Also at Institute of Particle Physics (IPP), Canada p Also at Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest, Romania q Also at Department of Physics, St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, St. Petersburg, Russia r Also at Borough of Manhattan Community College, City University of New York, New York, USA s Also at Department of Financial and Management Engineering, University of the Aegean, Chios, Greece t Also at Centre for High Performance Computing, CSIR Campus, Rosebank, Cape Town, South Africa u Also at Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA, USA v Also at Institucio Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avancats, ICREA, Barcelona, Spain w Also at Graduate School of Science, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan x Also at Fakultät für Mathematik und Physik, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg, Germany y Also at Institute for Mathematics, Astrophysics and Particle Physics, Radboud University Nijmegen/Nikhef, Nijmegen, The Netherlands z Also at Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA aa Also at Institute of Theoretical Physics, Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia ab Also at CERN, Geneva, Switzerland ac Also at Georgian Technical University (GTU), Tbilisi, Georgia ad Also at Ochadai Academic Production, Ochanomizu University, Tokyo, Japan ae Also at Manhattan College, New York, NY, USA af Also at Departamento de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile ag Also at Department of Physics, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor MI, USA ah Also at The City College of New York, New York NY, USA ai Also at School of Physics, Shandong University, Shandong, China aj Also at Departamento de Fisica Teorica y del Cosmos and CAFPE, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain ak Also at Department of Physics, California State University, Sacramento, CA, USA al Also at Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology State University, Dolgoprudny, Russia am Also at Departement de Physique Nucleaire et Corpusculaire, Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland an Also at Institut de Física d’Altes Energies (IFAE), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Barcelona, Spain ao Also at School of Physics, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China ap Also at Institute for Nuclear Research and Nuclear Energy (INRNE) of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria aq Also at Faculty of Physics, M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia ar Also at National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow, Russia as Also at Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA at Also at Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, Wigner Research Centre for Physics, Budapest, Hungary au Also at Faculty of Engineering, Giresun University, Giresun, Turkey av Also at CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université and CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France aw Also at Department of Physics, Nanjing University, Jiangsu, China ax Also at Department of Physics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia ay Also at Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan az Also at LAL, Univ. Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France ∗Deceased 1. L. Evans , P. Bryant , LHC Machine. JINST 3 , S08001 ( 2008 ) 2. R.N. Mohapatra , J.C. Pati , Left-right gauge symmetry and an “isoconjugate” model of CP violation . Phys. Rev. D 11 , 566 ( 1975 ) 3. G. Senjanovic , R.N. Mohapatra , Exact left-right symmetry and spontaneous violation of parity . Phys. Rev. D 12 , 1502 ( 1975 ) 4. N. Arkani-Hamed , A.G. Cohen , E. Katz , A.E. Nelson , The Littlest Higgs. JHEP 07 , 034 ( 2002 ). arXiv:hep-ph/0206021 5. G. Altarelli , B. Mele , M. Ruiz-Altaba , Searching for new heavy vector bosons in p p¯ colliders . Z. Phys . C 45 , 109 ( 1989 ) 6. ATLAS Collaboration , Search for new resonances in events with one lepton and missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector . Phys. Lett. B 762 , 334 ( 2016 ). arXiv: 1606 .03977 [hep-ex] 7. CMS Collaboration , Search for heavy gauge W' boson in events with an energetic lepton and large missing transverse momentum at √s = 13 TeV . Phys. Lett. B 770 , 278 ( 2017 ). arXiv: 1612 .09274 [hep-ex] 8. ATLAS Collaboration , The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider. JINST 3 , S08003 ( 2008 ) 9. ATLAS Collaboration , ATLAS Insertable B-Layer Technical Design Report , CERN-LHCC- 2010-013, ATLAS-TDR- 19 ( 2010 ). https://cds.cern.ch/record/1291633, ATLAS Insertable B-Layer Technical Design Report Addendum , ATLAS-TDR- 19 -ADD-1 ( 2012 ) https://cds.cern.ch/record/1451888 10. ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS Trigger System in 2015 . Eur. Phys. J. C 77 , 317 ( 2017 ). arXiv: 1611 .09661 [hep-ex] 11. S. Alioli, P. Nason , C. Oleari , E. Re, A general framework for implementing NLO calculations in shower Monte Carlo programs: the POWHEG BOX . JHEP 06 , 043 ( 2010 ). arXiv: 1002 .2581 [hepph] 12. T. Sjöstrand , S. Mrenna , P.Z. Skands , A brief introduction to PYTHIA 8.1 . Comput . Phys. Commun . 178 , 852 ( 2008 ). arXiv: 0710 .3820 [hep-ph] 13. H.-L. Lai et al., New parton distribution functions from a global analysis of quantum chromodynamics . Phys. Rev. D 82 , 074024 ( 2010 ). arXiv: 1007 .2241 [hep-ph] 14. P. Golonka , Z. Was , PHOTOS Monte Carlo: a precision tool for QED corrections in Z and W decays . Eur. Phys. J. C 45 , 97 ( 2006 ). arXiv:hep-ph/0506026 15. C. Anastasiou , L. Dixon , K. Melnikov , F. Petriello , High precision QCD at hadron colliders: Electroweak gauge boson rapidity distributions at NNLO . Phys. Rev. D 69 , 094008 ( 2004 ). arXiv:hep-ph/0312266 16. S. Dulat et al., The CT14 global analysis of quantum chromodynamics . Phys. Rev. D 93 , 033006 ( 2016 ). arXiv: 1506 .07443 [hepph] 17. D. Bardin et al., SANC integrator in the progress: QCD and EW contributions . JETP Lett . 96 , 285 ( 2012 ). arXiv: 1207 .4400 [hepph] 18. S.G. Bondarenko , A.A. Sapronov , NLO EW and QCD protonproton cross section calculations with mcsanc- v1.01. Comput. Phys. Commun . 184 , 2343 ( 2013 ). arXiv: 1301 .3687 [hep-ph] 19. T. Sjöstrand , S. Mrenna , P. Z. Skands , PYTHIA 6 . 4 physics and manual . JHEP . 05 , 026 ( 2006 ). arXiv:hep-ph/0603175 20. M. Czakon , A. Mitov , Top++ : a program for the calculation of the top-pair cross-section at hadron colliders . Comput. Phys. Commun . 185 , 2930 ( 2014 ). arXiv: 1112 .5675 [hep-ph] 21. T. Gleisberg et al., Event generation with SHERPA 1.1. JHEP 02 , 007 ( 2009 ). arXiv: 0811 .4622 [hep-ph] 22. R.D. Ball et al., Parton distributions with LHC data . Nucl. Phys. B 867 , 244 ( 2013 ). arXiv: 1207 .1303 [hep-ph] 23. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS search for a heavy gauge boson decaying to a charged lepton and a neutrino in pp collisions at √s = 7 TeV . Eur. Phys. J. C 72 , 2241 ( 2012 ). arXiv: 1209 .4446 [hep-ex] 24. ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Simulation Infrastructure. Eur. Phys. J. C 70 , 823 ( 2010 ). arXiv: 1005 .4568 [hep-ex] 26. ATLAS Collaboration, Electron efficiency measurements with the ATLAS detector using the 2015 LHC proton-proton collision data . ATLAS-CONF-2016-024 ( 2016 ). https://cds.cern.ch/record/ 2157687 27. ATLAS Collaboration, Muon reconstruction performance of the ATLAS detector in proton-proton collision data at √s = 13 TeV . Eur. Phys. J. C 76 , 292 ( 2016 ). arXiv: 1603 .05598 [hep-ex] 28. ATLAS Collaboration, Electron and photon energy calibration with the ATLAS detector using LHC Run 1 data . Eur. Phys. J. C 74 , 3071 ( 2014 ). arXiv: 1407 .5063 [hep-ex] 29. ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction with the ATLAS detector in the first protonproton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, ATL- PHYS-PUB- 2015- 027 ( 2015 ). https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/2037904 30. ATLAS Collaboration, Topological cell clustering in the ATLAS calorimeters and its performance in LHC Run 1 . Eur. Phys. J. C 77 , 490 ( 2017 ). arXiv: 1603 .02934 [hep-ex] 31. M. Cacciari , G.P. Salam , G. Soyez, The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm . JHEP 04 , 063 ( 2008 ). arXiv: 0802 .1189 [hep-ph] 32. ATLAS Collaboration, Jet Calibration and Systematic Uncertainties for Jets Reconstructed in the ATLAS Detector at √s = 13 TeV, ATL- PHYS-PUB- 2015- 015 ( 2015 ). https://cds.cern.ch/ record/2028594 33. ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS muon trigger in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV . Eur. Phys. J. C 75 , 120 ( 2015 ). arXiv: 1408 .3179 [hep-ex] 34. J. Gao , P. Nadolsky , A meta-analysis of parton distribution functions . JHEP 07 , 035 ( 2014 ). arXiv: 1401 .0013 [hep-ph] 35. J. Butterworth et al., PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II . J. Phys. G 43 , 023001 ( 2016 ). arXiv: 1510 .03865 [hep-ph] 36. L.A. Harland-Lang , A.D. Martin , P. Motylinski , R.S. Thorne , Parton distributions in the LHC era: MMHT 2014 PDFs . Eur. Phys. J. C 75 , 204 ( 2015 ). arXiv: 1412 .3989 [hep-ph] 37. R.D. Ball et al., Parton distributions for the LHC Run II . JHEP 04 , 040 ( 2015 ). arXiv: 1410 .8849 [hep-ph] 38. M. Botje et al., The PDF4LHC Working Group Interim Recommendations ( 2011 ). arXiv: 1101 .0538 [hep-ph] 39. A.D. Martin , W.J. Stirling , R.S. Thorne , G. Watt, Uncertainties on α_s in global PDF analyses and implications for predicted hadronic cross sections . Eur. Phys. J. C 64 , 653 ( 2009 ). arXiv: 0905 .3531 [hep-ph] 40. J. Gao et al., CT10 next-to-next-to-leading order global analysis of QCD . Phys. Rev. D 89 , 033009 ( 2014 ). arXiv: 1302 .6246 [hep-ph] 41. ATLAS Collaboration, Measurement of the inelastic proton-proton cross section at √s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC . Phys. Rev. Lett . 117 , 182002 ( 2016 ). arXiv: 1606 .02625 [hep-ex] 42. ATLAS Collaboration, Luminosity determination in pp collisions at √s = 8 TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC . Eur. Phys. J. C 76 , 653 ( 2016 ). arXiv: 1608 .03953 [hep-ex] 43. E. Gross , O. Vitells , Trial factors or the look elsewhere effect in high energy physics . Eur. Phys. J . C. 70 , 525 ( 2010 ). arXiv:1005.1891 [physics.data-an] 44. A. Caldwell , D. Kollar , K. Kroninger , BAT: the Bayesian analysis toolkit . Comput. Phys. Commun . 180 , 2197 ( 2009 ). arXiv:0808.2552 [physics.data-an] 45. ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Computing Acknowledgements 2016 -2017 . ATL-GEN- PUB- 2016-002. url: https://cds.cern.ch/ record/2202407 2 Physics Department, SUNY Albany, Albany, NY , USA 3 Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada 4 (a )Department of Physics, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey; (b)Istanbul Aydin University, Istanbul, Turkey; (c)Division of Physics, TOBB University of Economics and Technology, Ankara, Turkey 5 LAPP , CNRS/IN2P3 and Université Savoie Mont Blanc, Annecy-le- Vieux , France 6 High Energy Physics Division , Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA 7 Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ , USA 8 Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX , USA 9 Physics Department, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece 10 Physics Department, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, Greece 11 Department of Physics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA 12 Institute of Physics, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, Baku, Azerbaijan 13 Institut de Física d'Altes Energies (IFAE), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology , Barcelona, Spain 14 Institute of Physics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia 15 Department for Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway 16 Physics Division , Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA 17 Department of Physics, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany 18 Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics, Laboratory for High Energy Physics , University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland 19 School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK 20 (a )Department of Physics, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey; (b)Department of Physics Engineering, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey; (c)Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Istanbul Bilgi University, Istanbul, Turkey; (d)Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Bahcesehir University, Istanbul, Turkey 21 Centro de Investigaciones, Universidad Antonio Narino, Bogotá, Colombia 22 (a)INFN Sezione di Bologna , Bologna, Italy; (b)Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Università di Bologna, Bologna, Italy 23 Physikalisches Institut , University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany 24 Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA 25 Department of Physics, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, USA 26 ( a)Universidade Federal do Rio De Janeiro COPPE /EE/IF, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; (b)Electrical Circuits Department , Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Juiz de Fora, Brazil; (c)Federal University of Sao Joao del Rei (UFSJ) , Sao Joao del Rei , Brazil; (d)Instituto de Fisica, Universidade de Sao Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil 27 Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY , USA 28 (a )Transilvania University of Brasov, Brasov, Romania; (b)Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering , Bucharest, Romania; (c)Department of Physics, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Iasi, Romania; (d)Physics Department, National Institute for Research and Development of Isotopic and Molecular Technologies , Cluj-Napoca, Romania; (e)University Politehnica Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania; (f)West University in Timisoara, Timisoara, Romania 29 Departamento de Física, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina 30 Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 31 Department of Physics, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada 32 CERN , Geneva, Switzerland 33 Enrico Fermi Institute , University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA 34 (a )Departamento de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile; (b)Departamento de Física, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Valparaiso, Chile 35 (a)Institute of High Energy Physics , Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China; (b)Department of Physics, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China; (c)Physics Department, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China 36 (a)Department of Modern Physics and State Key Laboratory of Particle Detection and Electronics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China; (b)School of Physics, Shandong University, Shandong, China; (c)Department of Physics and Astronomy, Key Laboratory for Particle Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology, Ministry of Education, Shanghai Key Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology , Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai (also at PKU-CHEP), Shanghai, China 37 Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140%2Fepjc%2Fs10052-018-5877-y.pdf

M. Aaboud, G. Aad, B. Abbott, O. Abdinov, B. Abeloos, S. H. Abidi, O. S. AbouZeid, N. L. Abraham, H. Abramowicz, H. Abreu, R. Abreu, Y. Abulaiti, B. S. Acharya, S. Adachi, L. Adamczyk, J. Adelman, M. Adersberger, T. Adye, A. A. Affolder, T. Agatonovic-Jovin, C. Agheorghiesei, J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, S. P. Ahlen, F. Ahmadov, G. Aielli, S. Akatsuka, H. Akerstedt, T. P. A. Åkesson, E. Akilli, A. V. Akimov, G. L. Alberghi, J. Albert, P. Albicocco, M. J. Alconada Verzini, S. C. Alderweireldt, M. Aleksa, I. N. Aleksandrov, C. Alexa, G. Alexander, T. Alexopoulos, M. Alhroob, B. Ali, M. Aliev, G. Alimonti, J. Alison, S. P. Alkire, B. M. M. Allbrooke, B. W. Allen, P. P. Allport, A. Aloisio, A. Alonso, F. Alonso, C. Alpigiani, A. A. Alshehri, M. Alstaty, B. Alvarez Gonzalez, D. Álvarez Piqueras, M. G. Alviggi, B. T. Amadio, Y. Amaral Coutinho, C. Amelung, D. Amidei, S. P. Amor Dos Santos, A. Amorim, S. Amoroso, G. Amundsen, C. Anastopoulos, L. S. Ancu, N. Andari, T. Andeen, C. F. Anders, J. K. Anders, K. J. Anderson, A. Andreazza, V. Andrei, S. Angelidakis, I. Angelozzi, A. Angerami, A. V. Anisenkov, N. Anjos, A. Annovi, C. Antel, M. Antonelli, A. Antonov, D. J. Antrim, F. Anulli, M. Aoki, L. Aperio Bella, G. Arabidze, Y. Arai, J. P. Araque, V. Araujo Ferraz, A. T. H. Arce, R. E. Ardell, F. A. Arduh, J-F. Arguin, S. Argyropoulos, M. Arik, A. J. Armbruster, L. J. Armitage, O. Arnaez, H. Arnold, M. Arratia, O. Arslan, A. Artamonov, G. Artoni, S. Artz, S. Asai, N. Asbah, A. Ashkenazi, L. Asquith, K. Assamagan, R. Astalos, M. Atkinson, N. B. Atlay, K. Augsten, G. Avolio, B. Axen, M. K. Ayoub, G. Azuelos, A. E. Baas, M. J. Baca, H. Bachacou, K. Bachas, M. Backes, M. Backhaus, P. Bagnaia, M. Bahmani, H. Bahrasemani, J. T. Baines, M. Bajic, O. K. Baker, E. M. Baldin, P. Balek, F. Balli, W. K. Balunas, E. Banas, A. Bandyopadhyay, Sw. Banerjee, A. A. E. Bannoura, L. Barak, E. L. Barberio, D. Barberis, M. Barbero, T. Barillari, M-S Barisits, J. T. Barkeloo, T. Barklow, N. Barlow, S. L. Barnes, B. M. Barnett, R. M. Barnett, Z. Barnovska-Blenessy, A. Baroncelli, G. Barone, A. J. Barr, L. Barranco Navarro, F. Barreiro, J. Barreiro Guimarães da Costa, R. Bartoldus, A. E. Barton, P. Bartos, A. Basalaev, A. Bassalat, R. L. Bates, S. J. Batista, J. R. Batley, M. Battaglia, M. Bauce, F. Bauer, H. S. Bawa, J. B. Beacham, M. D. Beattie, T. Beau, P. H. Beauchemin, P. Bechtle, H. P. Beck, H. C. Beck, K. Becker, M. Becker, M. Beckingham, C. Becot, A. J. Beddall, A. Beddall, V. A. Bednyakov, M. Bedognetti, C. P. Bee, T. A. Beermann, M. Begalli, M. Begel, J. K. Behr, A. S. Bell, G. Bella, L. Bellagamba, A. Bellerive, M. Bellomo, K. Belotskiy, O. Beltramello, N. L. Belyaev, O. Benary, D. Benchekroun, M. Bender, K. Bendtz, N. Benekos, Y. Benhammou, E. Benhar Noccioli, J. Benitez, D. P. Benjamin, M. Benoit, J. R. Bensinger, S. Bentvelsen, L. Beresford, M. Beretta, D. Berge, E. Bergeaas Kuutmann, N. Berger, J. Beringer, S. Berlendis, N. R. Bernard, G. Bernardi, C. Bernius, F. U. Bernlochner, T. Berry, P. Berta, C. Bertella, G. Bertoli, F. Bertolucci, I. A. Bertram, C. Bertsche, D. Bertsche, G. J. Besjes, O. Bessidskaia Bylund, M. Bessner, N. Besson, C. Betancourt, A. Bethani, S. Bethke, A. J. Bevan, J. Beyer, R. M. Bianchi, O. Biebel, D. Biedermann, R. Bielski, K. Bierwagen, N. V. Biesuz, M. Biglietti, T. R. V. Billoud, H. Bilokon, M. Bindi, A. Bingul, C. Bini, S. Biondi, T. Bisanz, C. Bittrich, D. M. Bjergaard, C. W. Black, J. E. Black, K. M. Black, R. E. Blair, T. Blazek, I. Bloch, C. Blocker, A. Blue, W. Blum, U. Blumenschein, S. Blunier, G. J. Bobbink, V. S. Bobrovnikov, S. S. Bocchetta, A. Bocci, C. Bock, M. Boehler, D. Boerner, D. Bogavac, A. G. Bogdanchikov, C. Bohm, V. Boisvert, P. Bokan, T. Bold, A. S. Boldyrev, A. E. Bolz, M. Bomben, M. Bona, M. Boonekamp, A. Borisov, G. Borissov, J. Bortfeldt, D. Bortoletto, V. Bortolotto, D. Boscherini, M. Bosman, J. D. Bossio Sola, J. Boudreau, J. Bouffard, E. V. Bouhova-Thacker, D. Boumediene, C. Bourdarios, S. K. Boutle, A. Boveia, J. Boyd, I. R. Boyko, J. Bracinik, A. Brandt, G. Brandt, O. Brandt, U. Bratzler, B. Brau, J. E. Brau, W. D. Breaden Madden, K. Brendlinger, A. J. Brennan, L. Brenner, R. Brenner, S. Bressler, D. L. Briglin, T. M. Bristow, D. Britton, D. Britzger, F. M. Brochu, I. Brock, R. Brock, G. Brooijmans, T. Brooks, W. K. Brooks, J. Brosamer, E. Brost, J. H Broughton, P. A. Bruckman de Renstrom, D. Bruncko, A. Bruni, G. Bruni, L. S. Bruni, B H Brunt, M. Bruschi, N. Bruscino, P. Bryant, L. Bryngemark, T. Buanes, Q. Buat, P. Buchholz, A. G. Buckley, I. A. Budagov, F. Buehrer, M. K. Bugge, O. Bulekov, D. Bullock, T. J. Burch, S. Burdin, C. D. Burgard, A. M. Burger, B. Burghgrave, K. Burka, S. Burke, I. Burmeister, J. T. P. Burr, E. Busato, D. Büscher, V. Büscher, P. Bussey, J. M. Butler, C. M. Buttar, J. M. Butterworth, P. Butti, W. Buttinger, A. Buzatu, A. R. Buzykaev, S. Cabrera Urbán, D. Caforio, V. M. Cairo, O. Cakir, N. Calace, P. Calafiura, A. Calandri, G. Calderini. Search for a new heavy gauge-boson resonance decaying into a lepton and missing transverse momentum in 36 fb \(^{-1}\) of pp collisions at \(\sqrt{s} = 13\) TeV with the ATLAS experiment, The European Physical Journal C, 2018, 401, DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-5877-y