Missing transverse momentum distribution after SR3b selection, beside the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ requirement. The results in the signal region correspond to the last inclusive bin. The systematic uncertainties include theory uncertainties for the backgrounds with prompt SS/3L and the full systematic uncertainties for data-driven backgrounds. For illustration the distribution for a benchmark SUSY scenario ($pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$, $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$, $m_{\tilde g}=1.2$ TeV, $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}=0.7$ TeV) is also shown.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar q(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR0b3j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar q(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR0b3j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar qWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR0b5j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar qWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR0b5j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ production and $\tilde b_1\to tW\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR1b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ production and $\tilde b_1\to tW\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR1b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR3b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR3b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

+1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

-1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

+1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

-1 sigma excursion of the expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 9j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 10j50 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 7j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region 8j80 2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at no b-jet requirement. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at least 1 b-jet. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions with at least 2 b-jets. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The bins labelled in bold are signal regions, while the others are validation regions. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Summary of all 15 signal regions (post-fit).

Signal region yielding the best-expected CLs value, the best expected CLs value, and the corresponding observed CLs value for the 2Step grid.

Signal region yielding the best-expected CLs value, the best expected CLs value, and the corresponding observed CLs value for the pMSSM grid.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section for 2-step signal points for the best-expected signal region.

Performance of the 8j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-0b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-1b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-2b selection for the pMSSM grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 9j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 10j50-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 7j80-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-0b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-1b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Performance of the 8j80-2b selection for the 2Step grid: number of generated signal events; total signal cross-section; acceptance; efficiency (fractional); observed CL using this region alone; expected CL using this region alone.

Covariance matrix for statistical errors in Analysis I.

Covariance matrix for flux normalization error (fully correlated) in Analysis I.

Total signal cross-section per nucleon integrated over the restricted muon kinematics phase space ($p_\mu > 0.2$ GeV and $\cos\theta_\mu > 0.6$) in Analysis II.

Results of the double differential cross-section measurement bin-by-bin in Analysis II.

Covariance matrix for shape systematics error in Analysis II.

Covariance matrix for statistical errors in Analysis II.

Covariance matrix for flux normalization error (fully correlated) in Analysis II.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicity distribution in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Average transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of the number of charged particles in the event for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of pseudorapidity for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicity distributions in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Extrapolated average transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of the number of charged particles in the event for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <2.5.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of pseudorapidity for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Charged-particle multiplicity distribution in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Average transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of the number of charged particles in the event for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of pseudorapidity for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicities in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of transverse momentum for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Extrapolated charged-particle multiplicity distributions in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

Extrapolated average transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of 13000 GeV as a function of the number of charged particles in the event for events with the number of charged particles >=1 having transverse momentum >500 MeV and absolute(pseudorapidity) <0.8.

The average charged particle multiplicity for the more central jet and a charged particle threshold of 0.5 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.

The average charged particle multiplicity for the more central jet and a charged particle threshold of 2 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.

The average charged particle multiplicity for the more central jet and a charged particle threshold of 5 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.

The average charged particle multiplicity differnce between the more forward and the more central jets and a charged particle threshold of 0.5 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.

The average charged particle multiplicity differnce between the more forward and the more central jets and a charged particle threshold of 2 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.

The average charged particle multiplicity differnce between the more forward and the more central jets and a charged particle threshold of 5 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.

The average charged particle multiplicity for the sum of the more forward and the more central jets and a charged particle threshold of 0.5 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.

The average charged particle multiplicity for the sum of the more forward and the more central jets and a charged particle threshold of 2 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.

The average charged particle multiplicity for the sum of the more forward and the more central jets and a charged particle threshold of 5 GeV as a function of the jet transverse momentum.

Measured fiducial cross section in all $\ell^+\ell^-\ell'^+\ell'^-$ channels combined, where $\ell, \ell' = e, \mu$. The first systematic uncertainty is the combined systematic uncertainty excluding luminosity uncertainty, the second is the luminosity uncertainty.

Cross section extrapolated to total phase space and all Z boson decays. The first systematic uncertainty is the combined systematic uncertainty excluding luminosity uncertainty, the second is the luminosity uncertainty.

Summary of results for cross-section of non-prompt $J/\psi$ decaying to a muon pair for 8 TeV data in nb/GeV. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for cross-section of prompt $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair for 7 TeV data in nb/GeV. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for cross-section of prompt $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair for 8 TeV data in nb/GeV. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for cross-section of non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair for 7 TeV data in nb/GeV. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for cross-section of non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair for 8 TeV data in nb/GeV. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $J/\psi$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 7 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $J/\psi$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 8 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 7 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt fraction of $\psi(2S)$ decaying to a muon pair as a percentage for 8 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 7 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 8 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 7 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Summary of results for non-prompt $\psi(2S)$ over $J/\psi$ ratio as a percentage for 8 TeV data. Uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "longitudinal" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "transverse zero" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "transverse positive" spin-alignment transverse positive hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "transverse negative" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "off-($\lambda_{\theta}$--$\lambda_{\phi}$)-plane positive" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "off-($\lambda_{\theta}$--$\lambda_{\phi}$)-plane negative" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "longitudinal" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "transverse zero" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "transverse positive" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "transverse negative" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "off-($\lambda_{\theta}$--$\lambda_{\phi}$)-plane positive" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "off-($\lambda_{\theta}$--$\lambda_{\phi}$)-plane negative" spin-alignment hypothesis for 7 TeV.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "longitudinal" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "transverse zero" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "transverse positive" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "transverse negative" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "off-($\lambda_{\theta}$--$\lambda_{\phi}$)-plane positive" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $J/\psi$ under the "off-($\lambda_{\theta}$--$\lambda_{\phi}$)-plane negative" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "longitudinal" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "transverse zero" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "transverse positive" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "transverse negative" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "off-($\lambda_{\theta}$--$\lambda_{\phi}$)-plane positive" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

Mean weight correction factor for $\psi(2S)$ under the "off-($\lambda_{\theta}$--$\lambda_{\phi}$)-plane negative" spin-alignment hypothesis for 8 TeV. Those intervals not measured in the analysis at low $p_{T}$, high rapidity are also excluded here.

The measured differential cross sections $\rm{d}\sigma/\rm{d}|\eta|$ of $D^{*\pm}$ and $D^\pm$ production with $20<p_T<100\,$GeV. The first and second errors are the statistical and systematic uncertainties, respectively. The systematic uncertainty fractions corresponding to the tracking ($\delta_2$) uncertainties (Table 2 of the paper) are strongly correlated. The fully correlated uncertainties linked with the luminosity measurement ($3.5\%$) and branching fractions ($1.5\%$ and $2.1\%$ for $D^{*\pm}$ and $D^\pm$, respectively) are not shown.

1$\sigma$ C.L. contour in $\sin^{2}\bar{\theta}_{23}$-$\Delta\bar{m}^{2}_{32}$ plane (inverted hierarchy).

90% C.L. contour in $\sin^{2}\bar{\theta}_{23}$-$\Delta\bar{m}^{2}_{32}$ plane (inverted hierarchy).

Best-fit point in $\sin^{2}\bar{\theta}_{23}$-$\Delta\bar{m}^{2}_{32}$ plane (inverted hierarchy).