The $G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}}$ distribution in the PASS region for events passing the event selection and with $55 < p_{\mathrm{T}} < 200$ GeV.

The $G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}}$ distribution in the FAIL region for events passing the event selection and with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 200$ GeV.

The $G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}}$ distribution in the PASS region for events passing the event selection and with $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 200$ GeV.

Mass spectrum predicted in the signal region defined by $G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}} > 0.22$ and $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 70$ GeV.

Cross section limits for gluino and supersymmetric top R-hadrons for both background prediction methods.

Cross section limits for supersymmetric tau models for both background prediction methods.

Cross section limits for DY-produced tau prime models (single and multicharged) for both background prediction methods.

Cross section limits for Z prime to multicharged tau prime model for both background prediction methods. All Z prime models assume a narrow width, and a 100% branching fraction to 600 GeV tau primes.

2D exclusion showing the observed cross section limit as a function of the multicharged tau prime mass and Z prime mass for the ionization method.

2D exclusion showing the observed cross section limit as a function of the multicharged tau prime mass and Z prime mass for the mass method.

Cumulative selection efficiency for the data and for two signal hypotheses.

Expected and observed mass limits obtained using 2017-2018 data for various HSCP candidate models,for the two background estimate methods.

Mass windows used in the mass method as a function of the signal target mass for the signal samples assuming a charge of $1e$ and $2e$, as appropriate to the signal model.

Mass spectrum predicted in the validation region defined by $0.018 < G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}} < 0.057$ and $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 70$ GeV. The thresholds used in the $G_{\text{i}}^{\text{Strips}}$ requirement represent the 50% and 90% quantile of the distribution.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.3$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.3<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.6$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.6<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.9$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.9<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<1.2$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $1.2<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<2.1$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{g}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $2.1<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<2.4$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.3$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.3<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.6$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.6<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<0.9$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $0.9<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<1.2$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $1.2<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<2.1$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals as a function of $\beta$ for $2.1<\text{abs(}\eta\text{)}<2.4$. The up and down variations are conservatively estimated assuming a delay of 1.5 ns in the muon chambers (equivalent to the time resolution of the chambers) and are used to evaluate the signal systematic uncertainties.

Trigger efficiency as a function of $\beta$, for the $\tilde{g}$ signals.

Trigger efficiency as a function of $\beta$, for the $\tilde{\tau}$ signals.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{g}$ R-hadrons obtained with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{g}$ R-hadrons obtained with the mass method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{t}$ R-hadrons obtained with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{t}$ R-hadrons obtained with the mass method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{\tau}$ obtained with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{\tau}$ obtained with the mass method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{\tau}$ production within the GMSB SPS7 modelobtained with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for $\tilde{\tau}$ production within the GMSB SPS7 model obtained with the mass method.

Cross section limits for DY-produced $\tau'$ with $abs(Q) = 1e$ with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for DY-produced $\tau'$ with $abs(Q) = 1e$ with the mass method.

Cross section limits for DY-produced $\tau'$ with $abs(Q) = 2e$ with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for DY-produced $\tau'$ with $abs(Q) = 2e$ with the mass method.

Cross section limits for the production of $Z'$ boson decaying into a pair of $\tau'$ fermions of charge $2e$ (with a branching fraction equal to 1 and a fixed $\tau'$ mass of 600 GeV), obtained with the ionization method.

Cross section limits for the production of $Z'$ boson decaying into a pair of $\tau'$ fermions of charge $2e$ (with a branching fraction equal to 1 and a fixed $\tau'$ mass of 600 GeV), obtained with the mass method.

Two-dimensional exclusion showing the observed cross section limit as a function of the masses of the $\tau'$ (on the $x$ axis) and of the $Z'$ boson (on the $y$ axis), for the ionization method.

Two-dimensional exclusion showing the observed cross section limit as a function of the masses of the $\tau'$ (on the $x$ axis) and of the $Z'$ boson (on the $y$ axis), for the mass method.

Expected background yield, expected signal yield, and observed data for the mass method for 2017.

Expected background yield, expected signal yield, and observed data for the mass method for 2018.

Selection efficieny for GMSB supersymmetric $\tau$.

Selection efficiency for gluino R-hardon samples.

Selection efficiency for supersymmetric top R-hadrons.

Selection efficiency for pair-produced supersymmetric $\tau$.

Selection efficiency for $\tau'$ with $|Q| = 1e$.

Selection efficiecny for $\tau'$ with $|Q| = 2e$.

Selection efficiency for $Z'$ (mass = 3 TeV) going to $\tau'$ with $|Q| = 2e$.

Selection efficiency for $Z'$ (mass 5 TeV) goes to $\tau'$ with $|Q| = 2e$.

Selection efficiency for $Z'$ going to $\tau'$ (mass 600 GeV) with $|Q| = 2e$.

Selection efficiency for $Z'$ going to $\tau'$ (mass 1 TeV) with charge $|Q| = 2e$.

Post-fit distribution of the $M(ll)$ variable for the ultrahigh-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $M(ll)$ variable for the low-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '3l soft' signal region of the the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $M(ll)$ variable for the medium-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '3l soft' signal region of the the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(ll)$ variable for low-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(ll)$ variable for medium-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(ll)$ variable for high-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

Post-fit distribution of the $m_{\mathrm{T2}}(ll)$ variable for ultrahigh-$p_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ bins in the '2l soft' signal region of the '2/3l soft' analysis.

2SS $\ell/{\geq}\,3\ell$ search: observed and expected yields across the SRs in category A, events with three light leptons of which at least two form an OSSF pair, after the requirement that the leading-lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ be greater than 30 GeV is applied.

2SS $\ell/{\geq}\,3\ell$ search: observed and expected yields across the SRs of the '${\geq}\ 3\ell$' search in category B, events with three light leptons and no OSSF pair, after the requirement that the leading-lepton $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ be greater than 30 GeV is applied.

Wino-bino model: cross section limits in the model parameter space, for wino-like chargino-neutralino production in the WZ topology for the full parameter space.

Wino-bino model: cross section limits in the model parameter space, for wino-like chargino-neutralino production in the WZ topology for the compressed space.

Wino-bino model: cross section limits in the model parameter space, for wino-like chargino-neutralino production in the WH topology for the full parameter space.

Wino-bino model: cross section limits in the model parameter space, for wino-like chargino-neutralino production with mixed topology with equal branching fraction to WZ and WH.

Wino-bino model: exclusion contours from the individual and combined analyses targeting WZ topology for the full parameter space. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

Wino-bino model: exclusion contours from the individual and combined analyses targeting the corresponding compressed region. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

Wino-bino model: exclusion contours from the individual and combined analyses targeting the WH topology for the full parameter space. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

Wino-bino model: exclusion contours from the individual and combined analyses targeting combined contours for these two topologies. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

GMSB model: expected and observed cross section limits for the neutralino-neutralino production for the ZZ topology.

GMSB model: expected and observed cross section limits for the neutralino-neutralino production for the HH topology.

GMSB model: expected and observed cross section limits for the neutralino-neutralino production for the mixed topology with equal branching fraction to H and Z.

GMSB model: cross section limits for neutralino-neutralino production as a function of the NSLP mass and the branching fraction to the H boson for the combination of the searches.

GMSB model: exclusion limit for neutralino-neutralino production as a function of the NSLP mass and the branching fraction to the H boson for the combination of the searches along with the input searches. For visualization of the exclusion contours, linear interpolation is employed to account for the limited granularity of the available signal samples.

Cross section upper limit(s) in the mass plane of NLSP and LSP masses for the higgsino-bino model.

Mass plane cross section upper limit for direct slepton pair production, with observed and expected exclusion limits in the full mass plane from the combination.

Mass plane cross section upper limit for direct slepton pair production, with observed and expected exclusion limits in the compressed region from '2/3l' soft search.

Feynman diagrams of the effective neutralino pair production in the GMSB simplified model in which the two neutralinos decay into two gravitinos ($\tilde{G}$) and two $Z$ bosons (left), a $Z$ and a Higgs boson ($H$) (center), or two Higgs bosons (right).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

The distributions of the most impactful input variables to the TD jet tagger for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). They include the charged (upper left) and neutral (upper right) hadron energy fractions, the number of track constituents in the jet (middle left), the $\Delta R$ between the jet axis and the closest track associated with the PV (middle right), and the jet time (lower).

TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker. Both are evaluated using an independent sample of testing events.

TD jet tagger score distributions (left) for signal (red, lighter) and collision background (blue, darker). Identification probability for the signal versus the misidentification probability for the background (right) with the tagger working point (w.~p.) used in the analysis shown as a blue marker. Both are evaluated using an independent sample of testing events.

The efficiency of the TD jet tagger working point used in the analysis is shown as a function of the lab frame transverse decay length for simulated signals with $\chi$ mass of 400 GeV. The uncertainties shown account for lifetime dependence and statistical uncertainty.

The TD jet tagger score distributions for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. The last bin contains jets with tagger scores greater than 0.996, the threshold used to tag signal jets. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR (black round markers) is shown along with the systematic uncertainty (gray band), quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The measurements in the alternative MRs are displayed as well ($Z$+jets MR as green round markers, $t\bar{t}$ MR as red squared markers, QCD MR as blue triangular markers) along with their respective statistical uncertainty. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.

The TD jet tagger misidentification probability measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR (black round markers) is shown along with the systematic uncertainty (gray band), quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The measurements in the alternative MRs are displayed as well ($Z$+jets MR as green round markers, $t\bar{t}$ MR as red squared markers, QCD MR as blue triangular markers) along with their respective statistical uncertainty. On the left, this probability is shown for the first 19.9 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016, while on the right it is shown for the last 16.4 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected in 2016combined with data collected in 2017-2018.

Distribution of the number of TD tagged jets for the $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeVsimulated signal samples with $c\tau_{\chi} = 0.5$ m (solid red line) and $c\tau_{\chi} = 3.0$ m (dotted green line), estimated background (blue square markers), and data (black round markers). The signal distributions are normalized to the expected cross section limit. The blue shaded region indicates the systematic uncertainty in the background prediction. No background prediction is shown for the bin with zero TD tagged jets as it is the main control region used to predict the background for the other two bins. There are zero observed events in the bin with two or more TD tagged jets.

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $m_\chi$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to HG) = 0.5$ and $c\tau = 0.5$ m (left) or 3 m (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).

Expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as functions of $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$ and $m_{\chi} = 400$ GeV (left) or 1000 GeV (right).

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.5$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The distribution of the jet charged hadron energy fraction, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The distribution of the jet neutral hadron energy fraction, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The distribution of the number of track constituents in the jet, a variable used as input to the TD jet tagger score, for simulation (shaded histogram) and data (black markers) when using electrons from $W\to e\nu_e$ events as proxy objects for signal jets. The histograms and data points have been normalized to unit area. Similar levels of agreement are observed for photon proxy objects from the $Z\to\ell^+\ell^-\gamma$ sample.

The $\eta$ distribution of TD-tagged jets in a background-enriched control region that comprises events with exactly one TD-tagged jet. Observed data (black round markers) and the corresponding prediction based on control samples in data (empty squared markers), measured using the nominal $W$+jets MR, are compared. The prediction uncertainty (gray band) includes the systematic uncertainty quantifying the degree of process dependence measured from alternative MRs. The predictions for the shape and the normalization of the $\eta$ distribution are consistent with the data.

Jet time distribution in a sample of b-tagged jets from dilepton $t \bar{t}$ events in 2017 data-taking period (black round markers) and simulation (filled histogram). A Gaussian smearing procedure is applied to the jet time in the $t \bar{t}$ sample (green line) to correct for effects that are difficult to simulate (timing drift caused by crystals transparency loss due to detector aging, electronics jitter).

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 1$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.75$, $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 0.25$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to H\tilde{G}) = 0.25$, $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 0.75$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on $\sigma_{\chi\chi}$ as a function of $m_{\chi}$ and $c\tau_{\chi}$ in a scenario with $\mathcal{B}(\chi\to Z\tilde{G}) = 1$. The area enclosed by the dotted black line corresponds to the observed excluded region.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 127 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 150 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 175 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 200 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 300 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 400 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 600 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1000 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1250 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1500 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the merged topology, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R < 0.8$, and the H (or Z) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 3\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with exactly one quark in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and only one b-quark (or light quark) has $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 5\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

The efficiency of identifying a LLP decay as a TD-tagged jet in bins of the LLP transverse and longitudinal decay position. The sample used to compute the efficiency contains events with pair production of $\chi$ with a mass of 1800 GeV and a lifetime of 0.5 and 3 m, and considering the combinations of the $\chi$ decay modes considered in this search ($H \tilde{G} \rightarrow b\bar{b} \tilde{G}$ or $Z\tilde{G} \rightarrow q\bar{q} \tilde{G}$). The efficiency is calculated on top of the acceptance definition for the resolved topology with two quarks in acceptance, namely, the H (or Z) decay products are produced with an angular separation $\Delta R \geq 0.8$, and both b-quarks (or light quarks) have $p_T > 30$ GeV and $|\eta|<1$. The full simulation signal yield prediction can be reproduced within 7\%. This nonclosure uncertainty is added in quadrature to the statistical uncertainty of each bin.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 127 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 127 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 150 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 150 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 175 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 175 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 200 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 200 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 250 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 250 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 300 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 300 GeV.

Cutflow table for a $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ signal sample with a mass of 400 GeV.

Observed (points with error bars) and expected background (solid histograms) distributions for $E_{T}^{miss}$ in the signal region (a) SRL, (b) SRM and (c) SRH after the background-only fit applied to the CRs. The predicted signal distributions for the two models with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV (SRL), 1050 GeV (SRM) or 1950 GeV (SRH) are also shown for comparison. The uncertainties in the SM background are only statistical.

Observed and expected exclusion limit in the gluino-neutralino mass plane at 95% CL combined using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point, for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $139~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, for $\gamma/Z$ (a) and $\gamma/h$ (b) signal models. The black solid line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the 1$\sigma$ exclusions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves, the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties. For each point in the higgsino-bino parameter space, the labels indicate the best-expected signal region, where L, M and H mean SRL, SRM and SRH, respectively.

Observed and expected exclusion limit in the gluino-neutralino mass plane at 95% CL combined using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point, for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $139~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, for $\gamma/Z$ (a) and $\gamma/h$ (b) signal models. The black solid line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the 1$\sigma$ exclusions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves, the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties. For each point in the higgsino-bino parameter space, the labels indicate the best-expected signal region, where L, M and H mean SRL, SRM and SRH, respectively.

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Cutflow for the SRL selection, for two relevant signal points for both $\gamma/Z$ and $\gamma/h$ models, where the gluinos have mass of 2000 GeV and the neutralinos have a mass of 250 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SRM selection, for two relevant signal points for both $\gamma/Z$ and $\gamma/h$ models, where the gluinos have mass of 2000 GeV and the neutralinos have a mass of 1050 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SRH selection, for two relevant signal points for both $\gamma/Z$ and $\gamma/h$ models, where the gluinos have mass of 2000 GeV and the neutralinos have a mass of 1950 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Theory cross sections vs m($\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$) for SMS model TChiHH-G, $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1, \widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ NLSPs only.

The 95% CL observed and expected upper limits on the production cross sections of the TChiHH signal model as a function of the $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ masses. Relative to Fig. 13, the binning of the table is adjusted to align with the model points that were sampled. In addition, a small correction has been applied that affects the cross section upper limits for points with $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = 1$ GeV. For that row of points in the figure, the small region of model phase space reached by both the resolved and boosted selections was inadvertently double counted in computing the signal contribution to the predicted yield.

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NNLO+NNLL cross sections

Cross section, 95% CL upper limit plus theory vs m($\widetilde{g}$) for SMS model T5HH.

Pre-fit background covariance matrix $\sigma_{xy}$ for the 22 analysis bins, ordered as in Fig. 10.

Pre-fit background correlation matrix $\rho_{xy}$ for the 22 analysis bins, ordered as in Fig. 10.

Significance vs $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2), m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1))$ for SMS model TChiHH.

Significance vs $m(\widetilde{g})$ for SMS model T5HH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $275, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $300, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $300, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $50) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $450, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $750, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $1) for SMS model TChiHH.

Likelihood profile at $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2) = $750, $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1) = $200) for SMS model TChiHH.

Efficiency vs $m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1)$ for SMS model TChiHH-G. The denominator includes all 22 signal regions, and assumes $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}$-->$\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})=100\%$.

Efficiency vs $m(\widetilde{g})$ for SMS model T5HH. The denominator includes all 22 signal regions, and no constraint on $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}$-->$\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})$.

Efficiency vs $(m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_2), m(\widetilde{\chi}^0_1))$ for SMS model TChiHH. The denominator includes all 22 signal regions, and assumes $\mathcal{B}(\mathrm{H}$-->$\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}})=100\%$.

Signal and control region populations for the resolved signature.

Signal and control region populations for the boosted signature.

Cut flow table for the resolved topology showing expected event yields at 137 fb$^{-1}$ for selected signal models as successive selections are applied.

Cut flow table for the boosted topology showing expected event yields at 137 fb$^{-1}$ for selected signal model points as successive selections are applied. Here the hadronic baseline is defined by $N_{\mathrm{jet}}\geq$2, \ptmiss$>$300 GeV, $\Delta\phi$ cuts, and the isolated lepton and track vetoes.

The post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin for the $\text{t}\bar{\text{t}}$ CR. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components.

The post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the low-MET bin for the WZ-enriched region. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components.

The post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin for the WZ-enriched region. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components.

The post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin for the SS CR. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components.

The 2$\ell$-Ewk SR: the post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the low-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.

The 2$\ell$-Ewk SR: the post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the med-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.

The 2$\ell$-Ewk SR: the post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.

The 2$\ell$-Ewk SR: the post-fit distribution of the $M(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the ultra-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.

The 3$\ell$-Ewk search regions: the post-fit distribution of the $M^{\text{min}}_{\text{SFOS}}(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the low-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.

The 3$\ell$-Ewk search regions: the post-fit distribution of the $M^{\text{min}}_{\text{SFOS}}(\ell\ell)$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the TChiWZ and the simplified higgsino models in the scenario where the product of $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ eigenvalues is positive and negative, respectively. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the NLSP and the mass splitting between the NLSP and LSP, in GeV.

The 2$\ell$-Stop SR: the post-fit distribution of the leading lepton $p_{T}$ variable is shown for the low-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the T2bff$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the T2bW models. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the top squark and the mass splitting between the top squark and LSP, in GeV.

The 2$\ell$-Stop SR: the post-fit distribution of the leading lepton $p_{T}$ variable is shown for the med-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the T2bff$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the T2bW models. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the top squark and the mass splitting between the top squark and LSP, in GeV.

The 2$\ell$-Stop SR: the post-fit distribution of the leading lepton $p_{T}$ variable is shown for the high-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the T2bff$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the T2bW models. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the top squark and the mass splitting between the top squark and LSP, in GeV.

The 2$\ell$-Stop SR: the post-fit distribution of the leading lepton $p_{T}$ variable is shown for the ultra-MET bin. Uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic components. The signal distributions overlaid on the plot are from the T2bff$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the T2bW models. The numbers after the model name in the legend indicate the mass of the top squark and the mass splitting between the top squark and LSP, in GeV.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the TChiWZ model. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. Results are reported for the $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} \widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} > 0$ $M(\ell\ell)$ spectrum reweighting scenario. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the TChiWZ model. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. Results are reported for the $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2} \widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} < 0$ $M(\ell\ell)$ spectrum reweighting scenario. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the simplified higgsino model. The simplified model includes both neutralino pair and neutralino-chargino production modes. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. The results are reported for the $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ $M(\ell\ell)$ spectrum reweighting scenario. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the pMSSM higgsino model. The pMSSM one includes all possible production modes. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. The results are reported for the $\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_2}\widetilde{m}_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1}$ $M(\ell\ell)$ spectrum reweighting scenario. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the T2bff$\tilde{\chi}^0_1$ simplified model. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.

The observed 95% CL exclusion contours (black curves) assuming the NLO+NLL cross sections, with the variations (thin lines) corresponding to the uncertainty in the cross section for the T2bW simplified model. The red curves present the 95% CL expected limits with the band (thin lines) covering 68% of the limits in the absence of signal. The range of luminosities of the analysis regions included in the fit is indicated on the plot.

Distributions of $s_{\text{T}}$ in the single-tau one-bin SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $m_{\text{T}}(\tau)$ in the single-tau one-bin SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $\Sigma m_{\text{T}}(b_{1,2})$ in the single-tau $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$-binned SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Distributions of $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$ in the single-tau $p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$-binned SR. The stacked histograms show the various SM background contributions. The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainty of the SM background. The $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) and $t\bar{t}$ (1 real $\tau$) as well as the single-top background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. Minor backgrounds are grouped together and denoted as 'Other'. This includes $t\bar{t}$-fake, single top, and other top (di-tau channel) or $t\bar{t}$-fake, $t\bar{t}+H$, multiboson, and other top (single-tau channel). The overlaid dotted lines show the additional contributions for signal scenarios close to the expected exclusion contour with the particle type and the mass and $\beta$ parameters for the simplified models indicated in the legend. For the leptoquark signal model the shapes of the distributions for $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$ and $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ (not shown) are similar to that of $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The rightmost bin includes the overflow.

Observed event yields in data ('Observed') and expected event yields for SM background processes obtained from the background-only fit ('Total bkg.' and rows below) in the signal regions of the di-tau and single-tau channels. The quoted uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic uncertainties and are truncated at zero yield. By construction, no $t\bar{t}$ (2 real $\tau$) events can pass the selections in the single-tau channel. As the individual uncertainties are correlated, they do not add in quadrature to equal the total background uncertainty.

From left to right: upper limits at the 95% confidence level (CL) on the visible cross section ($\sigma_\text{vis}$) and on the number of signal events ($S_{\text{obs}}^{95}$). The third column ($S_{\text{exp}}^{95}$) shows the upper limit at the 95% CL on the number of signal events, given the expected number (and $\pm 1\,\sigma$ excursions on the expectation) of background events. The last two columns indicate the confidence level observed for the background-only hypothesis ($\text{CL}_{b}$), the discovery $p$-value ($p(s=0)$) and the significance ($Z$). In the di-tau SR, where fewer events are observed than predicted by the fitted background estimate, the $p$-value is capped at 0.5.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for the minimal-coupling scenario. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for the minimal-coupling scenario. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for vector leptoquarks with additional gauge couplings. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for vector leptoquarks with additional gauge couplings. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region.

Exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the stop-stau signal model as a function of the masses of the top squark $m(\tilde{t}_{1})$ and of the tau slepton $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1})$. Expected and observed limits are shown for the present search in comparison to observed limits from previous ATLAS analyses based on data from Run-1 of the LHC at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV [Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016)] and on a partial dataset from Run 2 at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV [Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 032008]. The green band indicates the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments.

Exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the stop-stau signal model as a function of the masses of the top squark $m(\tilde{t}_{1})$ and of the tau slepton $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1})$. Expected and observed limits are shown for the present search in comparison to observed limits from previous ATLAS analyses based on data from Run-1 of the LHC at $\sqrt{s} = 8$ TeV [Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016)] and on a partial dataset from Run 2 at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV [Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 032008]. The green band indicates the limit on the mass of the tau slepton (for a massless LSP) from the LEP experiments.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ with charge $+2/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}})$ with charge $+2/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ with charge $-1/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Expected and observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model, as a function of the mass $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ and the branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ into a quark and a charged lepton. The plot shows the exclusion contour for down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}})$ with charge $-1/3e$. The limits are derived from the binned single-tau signal region. Shown in gray for comparison are the observed exclusion-limit contours from the previous ATLAS publication that targets the same leptoquark models but is based on a subset of the Run-2 data [JHEP 06 (2019) 144]. In this previous publication five different analyses are considered that target not only the final state studied here but also the final states that correspond to a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow q\ell)$ of 0 or 1, leading to the concave shapes of the gray exclusion contours.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the stop-stau signal model.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model with up-type leptoquarks.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the scalar third-generation leptoquark signal model with down-type leptoquarks.

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model with minimal coupling (MC).

Upper limits on the signal cross section at the 95 % confidence level for the vector third-generation leptoquark signal model with additional gauge couplings (YM).

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of up-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of down-type leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}$. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}} \rightarrow t\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ in the minimal-coupling scenario. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 or 1 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of vector leptoquarks $\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}$ with additional gauge couplings. The plot does not show efficiencies for a branching fraction $B(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}} \rightarrow b\tau)$ of 0 because here the acceptance at generator level becomes zero and the efficiency is thus undefined.

Acceptance of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the one-bin signal region of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the first bin of the multi-bin signal region (50 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 100 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the middle bin of the multi-bin signal region (100 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau) <$ 200 GeV) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the last bin of the multi-bin signal region (200 GeV $< p_{\text{T}}(\tau)$) of the single-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Acceptance of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Efficiency of the signal region of the di-tau channel for pair production of top squarks with decays via tau sleptons.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\tilde{t}_{1}) = 1350$ GeV, $m(\tilde{\tau}_{1}) = 1090$ GeV for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 30,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{u}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{d}}) = 1.2$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 210,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the minimal-coupling scenario for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the di-tau SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the di-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the single-tau one-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

Cutflow for the benchmark signal model $m(\text{LQ}_{3}^{\text{v}}) = 1.4$ TeV, $\beta = 0.5$ in the Yang--Mills scenario for the single-tau multi-bin SR. The simulated sample contains 50,000 raw MC events. Weighted event yields are reported, normalized to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb$^{-1}$. 'Preselection' refers to the preselection for the single-tau channel.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$ and SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$ and SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$ and SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR0$_{\mathrm{breq}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR1$_{\mathrm{breq}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution in SR2$_{\mathrm{breq}}$ for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band. The red arrows indicate the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ selections in the signal regions.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ bserved 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on slepton/sneutrino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$, where $k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$+1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

$-1\sigma$ observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NLSP pair production with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$, where $i \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where two (or more) signal regions overlap, the signal region contributing its observed $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value to the combination is the one with the better (best) expected $\mathrm{CL}_{\mathrm{s}}$ value.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the wino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the wino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the slepton/sneutrino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the slepton/sneutrino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the gluino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the gluino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Observed upper limit on the signal cross section in fb for the higgsino GGM models. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Best expected SR for the wino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the wino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the slepton/sneutrino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the slepton/sneutrino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the gluino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{12k}$ where $k \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the gluino NLSP models with RPV LSP decays via $\lambda_{i33}$ where $i \in{1,2}$. A value of 1 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 2 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 3 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 4 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and 5 corresponds to SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$.

Best expected SR for the higgsino GGM models. A value of 6 corresponds to SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}$, 7 corresponds to SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}$, 8 corresponds to SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}_{\mathrm{bveto}}$, and 9 corresponds to SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}_{\mathrm{bveto}}$.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ models for SR0$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR1$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the wino NLSP $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ models for SR2$_{\mathrm{breq}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Acceptance across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

Efficiency across the GGM Higgsino grid for SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$. The interpolation between signal scenarios studied is included for illustration purposes only and may be subject to interpolation effects in sparsely populated areas.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR5L. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light leptons in distribution in SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the taus leptons in distribution in SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the light taus in distribution in SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with four light leptons and a Z veto. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with four light leptons and one Z candidate. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with four light leptons and two Z candidates. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with exactly five light leptons. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with three light leptons and one tau and a Z veto. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with three light leptons and one tau and one Z candidate. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with two light leptons and two taus and a Z veto. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

The lepton flavour and multiplicities in events with two light leptons and two taus and one Z candidate. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds after the background-only fit, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, $t\bar{t} ZZ$, $t\bar{t} WH$, $t\bar{t} HH$, $t\bar{t} tW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. The lower panel shows the ratio of the observed data to the expected SM background yield in each bin. Both the statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background are included in the shaded band.

Cutflow event yields in regions SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, SR0$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, SR0$_{\mathrm{breq}}$, and SR5L for RPV models with the $\lambda_{12k}\neq 0$ coupling. All yields correspond to weighted events, so that effects from lepton reconstruction efficiencies, trigger corrections, pileup reweighting, etc., are included. They are normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data sample, $\int L dt = 139\,\mbox{fb\(^{-1}\)}$. The preliminary event reduction is a centralized stage where at least two electrons/muons with uncalibrated $p_{\mathrm{T}} >$ 9 GeV are required.

Cutflow event yields in regions SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, SR1$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and SR1$_{\mathrm{breq}}$ for RPV models with the $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ coupling. All yields correspond to weighted events, so that effects from lepton reconstruction efficiencies, trigger corrections, pileup reweighting, etc., are included. They are normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data sample, $\int L dt = 139\,\mbox{fb\(^{-1}\)}$. The preliminary event reduction is a centralized stage where at least two electrons/muons with uncalibrated $p_{\mathrm{T}} >$ 9 GeV are required.

Cutflow event yields in regions SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, SR2$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and SR2$_{\mathrm{breq}}$ for RPV models with the $\lambda_{i33}\neq 0$ coupling. All yields correspond to weighted events, so that effects from lepton reconstruction efficiencies, trigger corrections, pileup reweighting, etc., are included. They are normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data sample, $\int L dt = 139\,\mbox{fb\(^{-1}\)}$. The preliminary event reduction is a centralized stage where at least two electrons/muons with uncalibrated $p_{\mathrm{T}} >$ 9 GeV are required.

Cutflow event yields in regions SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{loose}}$, SR0-ZZ$^{\mathrm{tight}}$, SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{loose}}$, SR0-ZZ$_{\mathrm{bveto}}^{\mathrm{tight}}$, and SR5L the higgsino GGM RPC model with BR($\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1 \rightarrow Z \tilde{G}$) = 50% and higgsino masses of 200 GeV, or BR($\tilde{\chi}^{0}_1 \rightarrow Z \tilde{G}$) = 100% and higgsino masses of 300 GeV. All yields correspond to weighted events, so that effects from lepton reconstruction efficiencies, trigger corrections, pileup reweighting, etc., are included. They are normalized to the integrated luminosity of the data sample, $\int L dt = 139\,\mbox{fb\(^{-1}\)}$. The generator filter is a selection of $\geq$4e/$\mu$/$\tau_{\mathrm{had-vis}}$ leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}(e,\mu)>4$GeV, $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\tau_{\mathrm{had-vis}})>15$GeV and $|\eta|<2.8$ and is applied during the MC generation of the simulated events. The preliminary event reduction is a centralized stage where at least two electrons/muons with uncalibrated $p_{\mathrm{T}} > 9$ GeV are required.

Efficiency in the Single-bin SR as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta$ M(N2,N1) $= 130$ GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.

Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} < 0.5$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.

Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} < 0.5$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.

Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $0.5 < \min_{\Theta} < 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.

Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $0.5 < \min_{\Theta} < 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.

Acceptance in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} > 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the acceptance is given in units of $10^{-4}$.

Efficiency in the Multi-bin SR, $\min_{\Theta} > 1.0$ bin as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV. Keep in mind that the efficiency is given in units of $10^{-2}$.

Observed upper limits on the signal cross section as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV.

Expected upper limits on the signal cross section as a function of the M(Sbottom) vs. M(N2) with the $\Delta M$(N2,N1) = 130 GeV.

Cutflows for the bechmarl signal point M(Sbottom) = 800 GeV, M(N2) = 180 GeV. Weighted event yields are reported starting with the "Preselection" line, normalized to an integrated luminosity of $139$ fb$^{−1}$.

Comparison of the expected and observed event yields in the signal regions. The top-quark and Z(mumu) background contributions are scaled with the normalization factors obtained from the background-only fit. The other contribution includes all the backgrounds not explicitly listed in the legend (V+jets except Z(mumu)+jets, di-/triboson, multijet). The hatched band indicates the total statistical and systematic uncertainties in the SM background. The contributions from three signal models to the signal regions are also displayed, where the masses M(Sbottom) and M(N2) are given in GeV in the legend. The lower panel shows the significance of the deviation of the observed yield from the expected background yield.

Dominant systematic uncertainties in the background prediction for the signal regions after the fit to the control regions. “Other” includes the uncertainties arising from muons, jet-vertex tagging, modeling of pile-up, the $E_{T}^{miss}$ computation, multijet background, and luminosity. The individual uncertainties can be correlated and do not necessarily add up quadratically to the total uncertainty.

The ratio between the observed data and the simulation in the high $\Delta$m portion of the $\ell+\text{jets}$ control region as a function of $p_T^{miss}$ after scaling the simulation to match the total yield in data.

Comparison between data and simulation in the high $\Delta$m portion of the $\ell+\text{jets}$ control region as a function of $N_t$ after scaling the simulation to match the total yield in data. The hatched region indicates the total shape uncertainty in the simulation.

The ratio between the observed data and the simulation in the high $\Delta$m portion of the $\ell+\text{jets}$ control region as a function of $N_t$ after scaling the simulation to match the total yield in data.

Comparison between data and simulation in the high $\Delta$m portion of the $\ell+\text{jets}$ control region as a function of $N_W$ after scaling the simulation to match the total yield in data. The hatched region indicates the total shape uncertainty in the simulation.

The ratio between the observed data and the simulation in the high $\Delta$m portion of the $\ell+\text{jets}$ control region as a function of $N_W$ after scaling the simulation to match the total yield in data.

Comparison between data and simulation in the high $\Delta$m portion of the $\ell+\text{jets}$ control region as a function of $N_{\text{res}}$ after scaling the simulation to match the total yield in data. The hatched region indicates the total shape uncertainty in the simulation.

The ratio between the observed data and the simulation in the high $\Delta$m portion of the $\ell+\text{jets}$ control region as a function of $N_{\text{res}}$ after scaling the simulation to match the total yield in data.

Observed event yields in data (black points) and predicted SM background (filled histograms) for the low $\Delta$m search bins 0--52. The signal models are denoted in the legend with the masses in GeV of the SUSY particles in parentheses: $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1})$ or $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1})$ for the T2 or T1 signal models, respectively. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the background prediction. The (unstacked) distributions for two example signal models are also shown.

The ratio of the data to the total background prediction for the low $\Delta$m search bins 0--52. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the background prediction.

Observed event yields in data (black points) and predicted SM background (filled histograms) for the high $\Delta$m search bins 53--104. The signal models are denoted in the legend with the masses in GeV of the SUSY particles in parentheses: $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1})$ or $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1})$ for the T2 or T1 signal models, respectively. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the background prediction. The (unstacked) distributions for two example signal models are also shown.

The ratio of the data to the total background prediction for the high $\Delta$m search bins 53--104. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the background prediction.

Observed event yields in data (black points) and predicted SM background (filled histograms) for the high $\Delta$m search bins 105--152 with ${N_b = 2}$. The signal models are denoted in the legend with the masses in GeV of the SUSY particles in parentheses: $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1})$ or $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1})$ for the T2 or T1 signal models, respectively. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the background prediction. The (unstacked) distributions for two example signal models are also shown.

The ratio of the data to the total background prediction for the high $\Delta$m search bins 105--152 with ${N_b = 2}$. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the background prediction.

Observed event yields in data (black points) and predicted SM background (filled histograms) for the high $\Delta$m search bins 153--182 with ${N_b \geq 3}$. The signal models are denoted in the legend with the masses in GeV of the SUSY particles in parentheses: $(m_{\tilde{t}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1})$ or $(m_{\tilde{g}}, m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1})$ for the T2 or T1 signal models, respectively. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the background prediction. The (unstacked) distributions for two example signal models are also shown.

The ratio of the data to the total background prediction for the high $\Delta$m search bins 153--182 with ${N_b \geq 3}$. The hatched bands correspond to the total uncertainty in the background prediction.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2tt simplified model as a function of the top squark and LSP masses. No interpretation is provided for signal models for which ${|{m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} - m_t}| < 25 GeV}$ and ${m_{\tilde{t}} < 275 GeV}$ as described in the text.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2tt simplified model as a function of the top squark and LSP masses. No interpretation is provided for signal models for which ${|{m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} - m_t}| < 25 GeV}$ and ${m_{\tilde{t}} < 275 GeV}$ as described in the text.

The observed exclusion contour of the T2tt simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$). No interpretation is provided for signal models for which ${|{m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} - m_t}| < 25 GeV}$ and ${m_{\tilde{t}} < 275 GeV}$ as described in the text.

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2tt simplified model and the region containing 68 and 95\% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis. No interpretation is provided for signal models for which ${|{m_{\tilde{t}} - m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} - m_t}| < 25 GeV}$ and ${m_{\tilde{t}} < 275 GeV}$ as described in the text.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2bW simplified model as a function of the top squark and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2bW simplified model as a function of the top squark and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T2bW simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2bW simplified model and the region containing 68 and 95\% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2tb simplified model as a function of the top squark and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2tb simplified model as a function of the top squark and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T2tb simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2tb simplified model and the region containing 68 and 95\% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2ttC simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2ttC simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T2ttC simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2ttC simplified model and the region containing 68\% ($\pm 1\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2bWC simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2bWC simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T2bWC simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2bWC simplified model and the region containing 68\% ($\pm 1\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2cc simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T2cc simplified model as a function of the top squark mass and the difference between the top squark and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T2cc simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T2cc simplified model and the region containing 68\% ($\pm 1\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T1tttt simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T1tttt simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T1tttt simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T1tttt simplified model and the region containing 68 and 95\% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T1ttbb simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T1ttbb simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses.

The observed exclusion contour of the T1ttbb simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$).

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T1ttbb simplified model and the region containing 68 and 95\% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis.

The observed 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T5ttcc simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses. The upper limits do not take into account contributions from direct top squark pair production; however, its effect is small for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} > 600 GeV$, which corresponds to the phase space beyond the exclusions based on direct top squark pair production. The excluded regions based on direct top squark pair production from this search and earlier searches are indicated by the hatched areas.

The expected 95% CL upper limit on the production cross section of the T5ttcc simplified model as a function of the gluino and LSP masses. The uppser limits do not take into account contributions from direct top squark pair production; however, its effect is small for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} > 600 GeV$, which corresponds to the phase space beyond the exclusions based on direct top squark pair production. The excluded regions based on direct top squark pair production from this search and earlier searches are indicated by the hatched areas.

The observed exclusion contour of the T5ttcc simplified model with respect to approximate NNLO+NNLL signal cross sections and the change in this contour due to variation of these cross sections within their theoretical uncertainties ($\sigma_{\text{theory}}$). The expected and observed upper limits do not take into account contributions from direct top squark pair production; however, its effect is small for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} > 600 GeV$, which corresponds to the phase space beyond the exclusions based on direct top squark pair production. The excluded regions based on direct top squark pair production from this search and earlier searches are indicated by the hatched areas.

The mean expected exclusion contour of the T5ttcc simplified model and the region containing 68% and 95% ($\pm 1$ and $2\,\sigma_{\text{experiment}}$) of the distribution of expected exclusion limits under the background-only hypothesis. The expected and observed upper limits do not take into account contributions from direct top squark pair production; however, its effect is small for $m_{\tilde{\chi}^0_1} > 600 GeV$, which corresponds to the phase space beyond the exclusions based on direct top squark pair production. The excluded regions based on direct top squark pair production from this search and earlier searches are indicated by the hatched areas.