The measured individual cross sections in the fiducial region and the combined cross sections for 4-muon and 4-electron final states at a centre-of-collision energy of 8 TeV.

The measured individual cross sections in the fiducial region and the combined cross sections for for 2-muon-2-electron final states at a centre-of-collision energy of 8 TeV.

The measured cross section for four-lepton final states at a centre-of-collision energy of 8 TeV.

The branching fraction for Z0 --> 4 LEPTON, summed over all final states, measured using both the 7 and 8 TeV datasets.

Differential cross-section for non-prompt chi_c2 production, measured in bins of J/psi pT, assuming unpolarised chi_c production. The measurements are not corrected for the branching fractions of the decays chi_c --> J/psi + gamma and J/psi --> mu+ mu-. The uncertainty envelope associated with the unknown chi_c spin alignment is also shown.

Differential cross-section for prompt chi_c1 production, measured in bins of chi_c1 pT, assuming unpolarised chi_c production. The measurements are not corrected for the branching fractions of the decays chi_c --> J/psi + gamma and J/psi --> mu+ mu-. The uncertainty envelope associated with the unknown chi_c spin alignment is also shown.

Differential cross-section for prompt chi_c2 production, measured in bins of chi_c2 pT, assuming unpolarised chi_c production. The measurements are not corrected for the branching fractions of the decays chi_c --> J/psi + gamma and J/psi --> mu+ mu-. The uncertainty envelope associated with the unknown chi_c spin alignment is also shown.

Differential cross-section for non-prompt chi_c1 production, measured in bins of chi_c1 pT, assuming unpolarised chi_c production. The measurements are not corrected for the branching fractions of the decays chi_c --> J/psi + gamma and J/psi --> mu+ mu-. The uncertainty envelope associated with the unknown chi_c spin alignment is also shown.

Differential cross-section for non-prompt chi_c2 production, measured in bins of chi_c2 pT, assuming unpolarised chi_c production. The measurements are not corrected for the branching fractions of the decays chi_c --> J/psi + gamma and J/psi --> mu+ mu-. The uncertainty envelope associated with the unknown chi_c spin alignment is also shown.

Fraction of prompt J/psi produced in feed-down from radiative chi_c decays as a function of J/psi pT, assuming unpolarised chi_c production. The uncertainty envelope associated with the unknown chi_c spin alignment is also shown. The spin-alignment envelope assumes that prompt J/psi are produced unpolarised and represents the maximum uncertainty due to the unknown chi_c spin alignment.

Production rate of prompt chi_c2 relative to prompt chi_c1, measured in bins of J/psi pT, assuming unpolarised chi_c production. The ratio is not corrected for the branching fractions of chi_c1 and chi_c2 into J/psi gamma. The uncertainty envelope associated with the unknown chi_c spin alignment is also shown.

Production rate of non-prompt chi_c2 relative to non-prompt chi_c1, measured in bins of J/psi pT, assuming unpolarised chi_c production. The ratio is not corrected for the branching fractions of chi_c1 and chi_c2 into J/psi gamma. The uncertainty envelope associated with the unknown chi_c spin alignment is also shown.

Fraction of chi_c1 produced in b-hadron decays as a function of chi_c1 pT, assuming unpolarised chi_c production. The uncertainty envelope associated with the unknown chi_c spin alignment is also shown.

Fraction of chi_c2 produced in b-hadron decays as a function of chi_c2 pT, assuming unpolarised chi_c production. The uncertainty envelope associated with the unknown chi_c spin alignment is also shown.

Observed limits on the pair production cross section as a function of mass for vector-like B quarks. These limits assume branching ratios given by the model where the B quark exists as a singlet.

Observed limits on the pair production cross section as a function of mass for vector-like T quarks. These limits assume branching ratios given by the model where the T quark exists as a singlet.

Expected and observed cross section limits as a function of mass on T_5/3 pair production.

Expected and observed cross section limits as a function of mass on T_5/3 pair production plus single production for $\lambda = 0.5$.

Expected and observed cross section limits as a function of mass on T_5/3 pair production plus single production for $\lambda = 1.0$.

Expected and observed limits for the sgluon pair-production cross section times branching ratio to four top quarks as a function of the sgluon mass.

Expected and observed limits on the four- top-quark production rate for the 2UED/RPP model in the symmetric case. The theory line corresponds to the production of four-top-quark events by tier (1, 1) with a branching ratio of A^(1,1) to tttt of 100%.

Number of data events (20.3 fb$^{-1}$), number of predicted events from the fit, statistical uncertainty on the fit, systematic uncertainty on the choice of control region, and on the choice of fit function versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ lower bin edge for inclusive jet multiplicity $N_{\textrm{Jet}} \geq 6$. The total uncertainty is obtained by adding the three uncertainties linearly.

Number of data events (20.3 fb$^{-1}$), number of predicted events from the fit, statistical uncertainty on the fit, systematic uncertainty on the choice of control region, and on the choice of fit function versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ lower bin edge for inclusive jet multiplicity $N_{\textrm{Jet}} \geq 7$. The total uncertainty is obtained by adding the three uncertainties linearly.

Number of data events (20.3 fb$^{-1}$), number of predicted events from the fit, statistical uncertainty on the fit, systematic uncertainty on the choice of control region, and on the choice of fit function versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ lower bin edge for inclusive jet multiplicity $N_{\textrm{Jet}} \geq 8$. The total uncertainty is obtained by adding the three uncertainties linearly.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 3$.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 4$.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 5$.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 6$.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 7$.

Upper limits on the visible cross section (cross section ($\sigma$) times acceptance ($A$) times efficiency ($\epsilon$)) at the 95% CL versus inclusive $H_{\textrm{T}}^{\textrm{min}}$ for $N_{\textrm{Jet}}\geq 8$.

Mean reconstruction efficiencies $(\epsilon)$ and RMS of the reconstruction efficiencies for various black hole and string ball models.

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

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

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

Observed 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

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

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

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

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

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

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

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The results of fits of the two-particle double-ratio correlation function $R_{2} (Q)$ for $\sqrt{s} = 0.9\ TeV$ events with the unlike-charge reference sample for various multiplicity intervals $n_{ch}$ for the exponential parametrization $\Omega^{(E)}$. The uncertainties for parameters $\lambda$ and $R$ are square root from the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. Where only one error is shown for parameters $C_{0}$ and $\epsilon$, this represents the statistical uncertainty only.

The results of fits of the two-particle double-ratio correlation function $R_{2} (Q)$ for $\sqrt{s} = 7\ TeV$ events with the unlike-charge reference sample for various multiplicity intervals $n_{ch}$ for the exponential parametrization $\Omega^{(E)}$. The uncertainties for parameters $\lambda$ and $R$ are square root from the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. The statistical uncertainties at $7\ TeV$ were corrected on the $\sqrt{\chi^{2}/ndf}$ and they more smaller than systematic uncertainties. Where only one error is shown for parameters $C_{0}$ and $\epsilon$, this represents the statistical uncertainty only.

The results of fits of the two-particle double-ratio correlation function $R_{2} (Q)$ for $\sqrt{s} = 7\ TeV\ HM$ events with the unlike-charge reference sample for various multiplicity intervals $n_{ch}$ for the exponential parametrization $\Omega^{(E)}$. The uncertainties for parameters $\lambda$ and $R$ are square root from the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. Where only one error is shown for parameters $C_{0}$ and $\epsilon$, this represents the statistical uncertainty only.

The results of fits of the two-particle double-ratio correlation function $R_{2} (Q)$ for $\sqrt{s} = 0.9\ TeV$ ($n_{ch} \ge 2$) events with the unlike-charge reference sample for various $k_{T}$ intervals for the exponential parametrization $\Omega^{(E)}$. The uncertainties for parameters $\lambda$ and $R$ are square root from the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. The statistical uncertainties were corrected on the $\sqrt{\chi^{2}/ndf}$ when $\chi^{2}/ndf > 1$. Where only one error is shown for parameters $C_{0}$ and $\epsilon$, this represents the statistical uncertainty only.

The results of fits of the two-particle double-ratio correlation function $R_{2} (Q)$ for $\sqrt{s} = 7\ TeV$ ($n_{ch} \ge 2$) events with the unlike-charge reference sample for various $k_{T}$ intervals for the exponential parametrization $\Omega^{(E)}$. The uncertainties for parameters $\lambda$ and $R$ are square root from the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. Where only one error is shown for parameters $C_{0}$ and $\epsilon$ , this represents the statistical uncertainty only. The statistical uncertainties were corrected on the $\sqrt{\chi^{2}/ndf}$ when $\chi^{2}/ndf > 1$. The statistical uncertainties at $7\ TeV$ more smaller than systematic uncertainties.

The results of fits of the two-particle double-ratio correlation function $R_{2} (Q)$ for $\sqrt{s} = 7\ TeV\ HM$ ($n_{ch} \ge 150$) events with the unlike-charge reference sample for various $k_{T}$ intervals for the exponential parametrization $\Omega^{(E)}$. The uncertainties for parameters $\lambda$ and $R$ are square root from the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. The statistical uncertainties were corrected on the $\sqrt{\chi^{2}/ndf}$ when $\chi^{2}/ndf > 1$.Where only one error is shown for parameters $C_{0}$ and $\epsilon$, this represents the statistical uncertainty only.

The results of fits of the two-particle double-ratio correlation function $R_{2} (Q)$ for $\sqrt{s} = 7\ TeV$ events with the unlike-charge reference sample for various $k_{T}$ intervals of different multiplicity regions $n_{ch}$ for the exponential parametrization $\Omega^{(E)}$. The statistical uncertainties were corrected on the $\sqrt{\chi^{2}/ndf}$ when $\chi^{2}/ndf > 1$. The statistical uncertainties smaller than systematic uncertainties. The uncertainties for parameters $\lambda$ and $R$ are square root from the quadratic sum of statistical and systematic errors. Where only one error is shown for parameters $C_{0}$ and $\epsilon$, this represents the statistical uncertainty only.

The $Q$ distribution measured at $0.9\ TeV$ for unlike-sign pairs for $p_{T} > 100\ MeV$ and $|\eta|<2.5$, renormalized to the total number of charged-particle pairs. The error bars represents the statistical uncertainties.

The $Q$ distribution measured at $0.9\ TeV$ for like-sign pairs for $p_{T} > 100\ MeV$ and $|\eta|<2.5$, renormalized to the total number of charged-particle pairs. The error bars represents the statistical uncertainties.

The $Q$ distribution measured at $7\ TeV$ for unlike-sign pairs for $p_{T} > 100\ MeV$ and $|\eta|<2.5$, renormalized to the total number of charged-particle pairs. The error bars represents the statistical uncertainties.

The $Q$ distribution measured at $7\ TeV$ for like-sign pairs for $p_{T} > 100\ MeV$ and $|\eta|<2.5$, renormalized to the total number of charged-particle pairs. The error bars represents the statistical uncertainties.

The $R_{2}(Q)$ correlation function measured at $0.9\ TeV$ using unlike-charge particle reference sample for different $n_{ch}$ intervals $p_{T} > 100\ MeV$ and $|\eta|<2.5$. The error bars represents only the statistical uncertainties.

The $R_{2}(Q)$ correlation function measured at $0.9\ TeV$ using unlike-charge particle reference sample for different $k_{T}$ intervals with multiplicity $n_{ch} \ge 2$. The error bars represents only the statistical uncertainties.

The $R_{2}(Q)$ correlation function measured at $7\ TeV$ using unlike-charge particle reference sample for different multiplicity intervals $n_{ch}$ with $p_{T} > 100\ MeV$ and $|\eta| < 2.5$. The error bars represents only the statistical uncertainties.

The $R_{2}(Q)$ correlation function measured at $7\ TeV$ using unlike-charge particle reference sample for different $k_{T}$ intervals with multiplicity $n_{ch} \ge 2$. The error bars represents only the statistical uncertainties.

The $R_{2}(Q)$ correlation function measured at $7\ TeV\ HM$ using unlike-charge particle reference sample for different $n_{ch}$ intervals $p_{T} > 100\ MeV$ and $|\eta|<2.5$. The error bars represents only the statistical uncertainties.

The $R_{2}(Q)$ correlation function measured with $7\ TeV\ HM$ data using unlike-charge particle reference sample for different $k_{T}$ intervals with multiplicity $n_{ch} \ge 150$. The error bars represents only the statistical uncertainties.

The $R_{2}(Q)$ correlation function measured at $7\ TeV$ using unlike-charge particle reference sample for different $k_{T}$ intervals within multiplicity interval $n_{ch} = 2-9$. The error bars represents only the statistical uncertainties.

The $R_{2}(Q)$ correlation function measured at $7\ TeV$ using unlike-charge particle reference sample for different $k_{T}$ intervals within multiplicity interval $n_{ch} = 10-24$. The error bars represents only the statistical uncertainties.

The $R_{2}(Q)$ correlation function measured at $7\ TeV$ using unlike-charge particle reference sample for different $k_{T}$ intervals within multiplicity interval $n_{ch} = 25-80$. The error bars represents only the statistical uncertainties.

The $R_{2}(Q)$ correlation function measured at $7\ TeV$ using unlike-charge particle reference sample for different $k_{T}$ intervals within multiplicity interval $n_{ch} = 81-125$. The error bars represents only the statistical uncertainties.