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.

SM background observation/prediction in the WH signal region

SM background prediction vs. observation in the W signal region

SM background observation/prediction in the W signal region

SM background prediction vs. observation in the H signal region

SM background observation/prediction in the H signal region

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the production cross sections for $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^\mp_1$ assuming that each $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ decays to a W boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the production cross sections for $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ assuming that each $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ decays to a W boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ decays to a Z boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the production cross sections for $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ assuming that each $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ decays to a W boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$ and the $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ decays to a H boson and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_1$

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Observed exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

Expected exclusion limits assuming the approximate-NLO+NLL cross sections

The 95% CL observed upper limits on the production cross sections for mass-degenerate higgsino-like$\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^\mp_1$, $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$, $\widetilde{\chi}^\pm_1$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_3$ and $\widetilde{\chi}^0_2$ $\widetilde{\chi}^0_3$ as functions of the NLSP and LSP masses.

Efficiency of bb-tagger for H(bb), Z(bb) and Z(cc) decays.

Efficiency of W- and V-tagger for W(qq) and Z(qq) decays.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWW in the b-Veto region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWZ in the b-Veto region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWH in the b-Veto region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiHZ in the b-Veto region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWW in the WHSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWW in the WSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWW in the HSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWZ in the WHSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWZ in the WSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWZ in the HSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWH in the WHSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWH in the WSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiWH in the HSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with uncertainties for TChiHZ in the WHSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with uncertainties for TChiHZ in the WSR region.

Acceptance times efficiency values with statistical uncertainties for TChiHZ in the HSR region.

Covariance matrix for the signal regions, derived from a fit to the control regions only under the background-only hypothesis.

Correlation matrix for the signal regions, derived from a fit to the control regions only under the background-only hypothesis.

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.

The $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ distribution for events passing the signal region requirements except the $m_{\mathrm{eff}}$ requirement in SR2. Distributions for data, the estimated SM backgrounds, and an example SUSY scenario are shown. "Other" is the sum of the $tWZ$, $t\bar{t}WW$, and $t\bar{t}t\bar{t}$ backgrounds. The last bin captures the overflow events. 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 region.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino $W/Z$ NLSP pair production with RPV $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays via $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ where $i,k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino $W/Z$ NLSP pair production with RPV $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays via $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ where $i,k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino $W/Z$ NLSP pair production with RPV $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays via $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ where $i,k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino $W/Z$ NLSP pair production with RPV $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays via $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ where $i,k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino $W/h$ NLSP pair production with RPV $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays via $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ where $i,k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino $W/h$ NLSP pair production with RPV $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays via $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ where $i,k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on wino $W/h$ NLSP pair production with RPV $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays via $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ where $i,k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on wino $W/h$ NLSP pair production with RPV $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays via $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ where $i,k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on $\tilde{\ell}/\tilde{\nu}$ NLSP pair production with RPV $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays via $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ where $i,k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on $\tilde{\ell}/\tilde{\nu}$ NLSP pair production with RPV $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays via $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ where $i,k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on $\tilde{\ell}/\tilde{\nu}$ NLSP pair production with RPV $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays via $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ where $i,k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on $\tilde{\ell}/\tilde{\nu}$ NLSP pair production with RPV $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays via $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ where $i,k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NSLP pair production with RPV $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays via $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ where $i,k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NSLP pair production with RPV $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays via $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ where $i,k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NSLP pair production with RPV $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays via $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ where $i,k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on gluino NSLP pair production with RPV $\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ decays via $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ where $i,k \in{1,2}$. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Expected 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Observed 95% CL exclusion limits on the higgsino GGM models. The limits are set using the statistical combination of disjoint signal regions. Where the signal regions are not mutually exclusive, the observed $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value is taken from the signal region with the better expected $\mathrm{CL}_s$ value.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ masses in the context of the wino $W/Z$ RPV scenario with $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ couplings. The signal region used to obtain the limits is SR0A. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ masses in the context of the wino $W/Z$ RPV scenario with $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ couplings. The signal region used to obtain the limits is the combination of SR0A, SR1 and SR2. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ masses in the context of the wino $W/Z$ RPV scenario with $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ couplings. The signal region used to obtain the limits is SR0B. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ masses in the context of the wino $W/Z$ RPV scenario with $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ couplings. The signal region used to obtain the limits is the combination of SR0B, SR1 and SR2. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ masses in the context of the wino $W/h$ RPV scenario with $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ couplings. The signal region used to obtain the limits is SR0A. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ masses in the context of the wino $W/h$ RPV scenario with $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ couplings. The signal region used to obtain the limits is the combination of SR0A, SR1 and SR2. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ masses in the context of the wino $W/h$ RPV scenario with $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ couplings. The signal region used to obtain the limits is SR0B. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}/\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ masses in the context of the wino $W/h$ RPV scenario with $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ couplings. The signal region used to obtain the limits is the combination of SR0B, SR1 and SR2. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

Observed exclusion limits on the slepton/sneutrino masses in the context of the slepton/sneutrino RPV scenario with $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ couplings. The signal region used to obtain the limits is SR0A. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

Observed exclusion limits on the slepton/sneutrino masses in the context of the slepton/sneutrino RPV scenario with $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ couplings. The signal region used to obtain the limits is the combination of SR0A, SR1 and SR2. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

Observed exclusion limits on the slepton/sneutrino masses in the context of the slepton/sneutrino RPV scenario with $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ couplings. The signal region used to obtain the limits is SR0B. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

Observed exclusion limits on the slepton/sneutrino masses in the context of the slepton/sneutrino RPV scenario with $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ couplings. The signal region used to obtain the limits is the combination of SR0B, SR1 and SR2. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

Observed exclusion limits on the gluino masses in the context of the gluino RPV scenario with $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ couplings. The signal region used to obtain the limits is SR0A. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

Observed exclusion limits on the gluino masses in the context of the gluino RPV scenario with $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ couplings. The signal region used to obtain the limits is the combination of SR0A, SR1 and SR2. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

Observed exclusion limits on the gluino masses in the context of the gluino RPV scenario with $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ couplings. The signal region used to obtain the limits is SR0B. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

Observed exclusion limits on the gluino masses in the context of the gluino RPV scenario with $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ couplings. The signal region used to obtain the limits is the combination of SR0B, SR1 and SR2. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ masses in the context of the higgsino GGM scenario in SR0C. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}\tilde{\chi}_1^{0}$ masses in the context of the higgsino GGM scenario in SR0D. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The grey numbers represent the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross-section (in fb) obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to this model.

The best expected exclusion power between signal regions at each signal point as is adopted in the limit calculation of the wino $W/Z$ model for $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ RPV couplings. For the $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ case, the results from SR0B are adopted everywhere in the final exclusion limit contours, as is found to be the most powerful signal region among SR0A and SR0B in the majority of the signal grid points of this model.

The best expected exclusion power between signal regions at each signal point as is adopted in the limit calculation of the wino $W/Z$ model for $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ RPV couplings. A combination of SR0A + SR1 + SR2 or SR0B + SR1 + SR2 is tested to detect the best expected limit; shown on the plot is the region (SR0A or SR0B) which is chosen to provide the best expected limit in combination with SR1 and SR2. The results from the combination SR0B + SR1 + SR2 are finally adopted everywhere in the final exclusion limit contour since they provide the best expected limit.

The best expected exclusion power between signal regions at each signal point as is adopted in the limit calculation of the wino $W/h$ model for $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ RPV couplings. For the $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ case, the results from SR0B are adopted everywhere in the final exclusion limit contours, as is found to be the most powerful signal region among SR0A and SR0B in the majority of the signal grid points of this model.

The best expected exclusion power between signal regions at each signal point as is adopted in the limit calculation of the wino $W/h$ model for $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ RPV couplings. A combination of SR0A + SR1 + SR2 or SR0B + SR1 + SR2 is tested to detect the best expected limit; shown on the plot is the region (SR0A or SR0B) which is chosen to provide the best expected limit in combination with SR1 and SR2. The results from the combination SR0B + SR1 + SR2 are finally adopted everywhere in the final exclusion limit contour since they provide the best expected limit.

The best expected exclusion power between signal regions at each signal point as is adopted in the limit calculation of the slepton/sneutrino model for $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ RPV couplings.

The best expected exclusion power between signal regions at each signal point as is adopted in the limit calculation of the slepton/sneutrino model for $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ RPV couplings. A combination of SR0A + SR1 + SR2 or SR0B + SR1 + SR2 is tested to detect the best expected limit; shown on the plot is the region (SR0A or SR0B) which is chosen to provide the best expected limit in combination with SR1 and SR2.

The best expected exclusion power between signal regions at each signal point as is adopted in the limit calculation of the gluino model for $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ RPV couplings.

The best expected exclusion power between signal regions at each signal point as is adopted in the limit calculation of the gluino model for $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ RPV couplings. A combination of SR0A + SR1 + SR2 or SR0B + SR1 + SR2 is tested to detect the best expected limit; shown on the plot is the region (SR0A or SR0B) which is chosen to provide the best expected limit in combination with SR1 and SR2.

The best expected exclusion power between the overlapping SR0C and SR0D at each signal point as is adopted in the limit combination of the GGM higgsino model.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the Wino $\tilde{\chi}_1^{+}\tilde{\chi}_1^{-}$ $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR0A. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the Wino $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$ $W/Z$ $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR0A. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the Wino $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$ $W/h$ $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR0A. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the slepton/sneutrino $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR0A. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the gluino $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR0A. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the Wino $\tilde{\chi}_1^{+}\tilde{\chi}_1^{-}$ $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR0B. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the Wino $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$ $W/Z$ $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR0B. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the Wino $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$ $W/h$ $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR0B. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the slepton/sneutrino $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR0B. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the gluino $\lambda_{12k} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR0B. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the GGM Higgsino models with BR($\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \rightarrow Z \tilde{G}$)=100% and BR($\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \rightarrow Z \tilde{G}$)=50% fulfilling the selection criteria of SR0C. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the GGM Higgsino models with BR($\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \rightarrow Z \tilde{G}$)=100% and BR($\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \rightarrow Z \tilde{G}$)=50% fulfilling the selection criteria of SR0D. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the Wino $\tilde{\chi}_1^{+}\tilde{\chi}_1^{-}$ $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR1. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the Wino $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$ $W/Z$ $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR1. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the Wino $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$ $W/h$ $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR1. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the slepton/sneutrino $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR1. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the gluino $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR1. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the Wino $\tilde{\chi}_1^{+}\tilde{\chi}_1^{-}$ $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR2. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the Wino $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$ $W/Z$ $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR2. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the Wino $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^{0}$ $W/h$ $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR2. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the slepton/sneutrino $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR2. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Acceptance ($A$) at particle level and selection efficiency ($\epsilon$) at reconstruction level for the gluino $\lambda_{i33} \neq 0$ model fulfilling the selection criteria of SR2. The implementation of "simple" cut selection at truth level uses the SimpleAnalysis framework and the code can be found in the Resources of the HepData entry for this paper.

Cutflow event yields in regions SR0A and SR0B 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, $\int L dt = 36.1$ fb$^{-1}$. The "Initial" number indicates the weighted number of events before any selection cut is applied. The last entries show the normalized number of events surviving the selection requirements of SR0A and SR0B.

Cutflow event yields in regions SR0C and SR0D for GGM Higgsino models with BR($\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \rightarrow Z \tilde{G}$)=100% or BR($\tilde{\chi}_1^0 \rightarrow Z \tilde{G}$)=50%, and $\tilde{\chi}_1^{\pm}\tilde{\chi}_2^0\tilde{\chi}_1^0$ mass of 400 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, $\int L dt = 36.1$ fb$^{-1}$. The "Initial" number indicates the weighted number of events before any selection cut is applied. The "Generator Filter" step is applied during the MC generation of the simulated events; the BR=100% sample has a generator filter of $\geq 4e/\mu$ leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}>4$ GeV and $|\eta|<2.8$, and the BR=50% sample has a generator filter of $\geq 4 e/\mu/\tau_{\mathrm{had-vis}}$ leptons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}(e,\mu)>4$ GeV, $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\tau_{\mathrm{had-vis}}^{\mathrm{visible}})>15$ GeV and $|\eta|<2.8$. The $ZZ$ selection cutflow step refers to the mass window cut for the leading and subleading $Z$ boson candidate between $81.2-101.2$ GeV and $61.2-101.2$ GeV, respectively. The last entries show the efficiency of events surviving the selection requirements defined in SR0C and SR0D.

Cutflow event yields in region SR1 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, $\int L dt = 36.1$ fb$^{-1}$. The "Initial" number indicates the weighted number of events before any selection cut is applied. The last entries show the normalized number of events surviving the selection requirements of SR1.

Cutflow event yields in region SR2 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, $\int L dt = 36.1$ fb$^{-1}$. The "Initial" number indicates the weighted number of events before any selection cut is applied. The last entries show the normalized number of events surviving the selection requirements of SR2.

Cross sections for the slepton/snuetrino model for different NLSP masses.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the low-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the low-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 0.2 ns and $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV) in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of muon background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of signal ($m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}} = 500 GeV$) in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of total background in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data in strong channel in the high-Emiss region.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 0.2 ns.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the strong production channel in terms of the gluino and chargino masses. The limit is shown assuming a chargino lifetime 1.0 ns.

Expected exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

Observed exclusion limit at 95% CL obtained in the electroweak production channel in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

Model dependent upper limits on cross-section (pb) for the electroweak production are shown by grey numbers in terms of the chargino lifetime ($\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) and mass ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the electroweak channel. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is defined as the probability of an event passing the signal region selection when an electroweak gaugino pair is produced in a pp collision.

Total acceptance $\times$ efficiency of the strong channel. In white regions, no simulation sample is available. The left-upper triangle region is not allowed kinematically in wino-LSP scenarios. The total signal acceptance $\times$ efficiency is calculated relative to events in which the gluinos decay into electroweak gaugino pairs.

The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).

The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the electroweak channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.

The generator-level acceptance for charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).

The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos produced in the strong channel as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level). The acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction is the probability of a signal event, which passes all the event-level requirements, passing all the track/tracklet requirements after reconstruction.

Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in direct electroweak production with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.

Summary of the selection criteria, and the corresponding observed number of events in data as well as the expected number of signal events in simulation for two benchmark models: a chargino produced in the strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. The expected number of signal events is normalised to 36.1 fb${}^{-1}$. The signal selection efficiencies are also shown in parentheses. The first row shows the number of events after the application of detector and data quality conditions. Requirements below the dashed line are applied to tracks and tracklets.

The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few electroweak signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.

The event and tracklet generator-level acceptance and selection efficiency for a few strong signal models studied in this search. The last column shows the probability ($P$) for a reconstructed tracklet to have $p_{T}$ greater than 100 GeV.

Systematic uncertainties in the signal event yields at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. The uncertainty in the cross-section of the strong production is large due to the large effect from the PDF uncertainty.

Observed events, expected background for null signal, and expected signal yields for two benchmark models: electroweak channel with ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (400 GeV, 0.2 ns) and strong channel with ($m_{\tilde{g}}$, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$, $\tau_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1600 GeV, 500 GeV, 0.2 ns) in the high-Emiss region. Also shown are the probability of a background-only experiment being more signal-like than observed ($p_0$) and the upper limit on the model-independent visible cross-section at 95\% CL. The uncertainty in the total background yield is different from the sum of uncertainties in quadrature due to anti-correlation between different backgrounds.

Effects of systematic uncertainties on the signal exclusion significance at $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 400 GeV for the electroweak channel and at $m_{\tilde{g}}$ = 1600 GeV, $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$ = 500 GeV for the strong channel. The lifetime of the chargino is not relevant here. Effects of uncertainties on the fake-tracklet background is smaller in the strong channel analysis because the estimated number of the fake-tracklet background events is small.

Cross-section upper limits for the strong production, presented in unit of fb. Left-upper triangle region is unphysical because the wino mass is larger than the gluino mass.

Cutflow table for a pair produced coloron of 1500 GeV decaying into two quarks.

The observed number of data, background and top squark signal events in each of the signal regions of the inclusive selection

The observed number of data, background and coloron signal events in each of the signal regions of the inclusive selection

The observed number of data, background and top squark signal events in each of the signal regions of the b-tagged selection

Signal acceptance and efficiency (in %) as a function of M(STOP), before mass windows

Signal acceptance (in %) and efficiency as a function of M(STOP), after mass windows

Signal acceptance and efficiency (in %) as a function of M(RHO), before mass windows

Signal acceptance and efficiency (in %) as a function of M(RHO), after mass windows

Signal acceptance (in %) and efficiency as a function of M(STOP), before mass windows

Signal acceptance (in %) and efficiency as a function of M(STOP), after mass windows

Cross section excluded at 95% CL as a function of the top squark mass, for a pair produced top squark with decays into a pair of light-quarks.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL as a function of the cooron mass, for a pair produced coloron with decays into a pair of light-quarks.

Cross section excluded at 95% CL as a function of the top squark mass, for a pair produced top squark with decays into a b- and an s-quark.

Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 700 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 900 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 900 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1000 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1000 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1050 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1050 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1100 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1100 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1150 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1150 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1250 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1250 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1300 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1300 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1350 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1350 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1400 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1400 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1450 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1450 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit contour in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 800 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1200 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.

Signal acceptance (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop, for the SR800 signal region.

Signal efficiency (in %) in the (BRe,BRtau) plane for a 1500 GeV stop, for the SR1100 signal region.

$m_{bl}^{0}$ distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.

$m_{bl}^\mathrm{asym}$ distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.

$H_\mathrm{T}$ distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.

$m_{ll}$ distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.

$m_{bl}^{1}$(rej) distribution in SR800. All selection criteria are applied, except the selection on the variable that is displayed in the plot. The SM backgrounds are normalized to the values determined in the background-only fit. The last bin includes overflows.

Full list of event selections and MC generator-weighted yields and efficiencies in the inclusive SR800 and SR1100 signal regions for several signal samples of varying stop mass with decay into b-electron, b-muon or b-tau at 1/3 branching ratio.

Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 600 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 700 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 800 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 900 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1000 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1050 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1100 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1150 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1200 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1250 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1300 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1350 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1400 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1450 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1500 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1550 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limit in the (BRe,BRtau) plane on the cross section for a 1600 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1350 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1400 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1450 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1500 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1550 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1600 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 600 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 700 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 800 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 900 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1000 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1050 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1100 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1150 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1200 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1250 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

The chosen signal region in the (BRe,BRtau) plane with the best expected exclusion on the cross section for a 1300 GeV stop. All limits are computed at 95% CL.