Correlation coefficients for the differential cross-section of $Z \to e^+ e^-$ at 7 TeV between bins of $Z$ rapidity, $y_{Z}$. Both statistical and systematic contributions are included.

Correlation coefficients for the differential cross-section of $Z \to e^+ e^-$ at 7 TeV between bins of $\phi^*$. Both statistical and systematic contributions are included.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE0 LJs as a function of $L_{\mathrm{xy}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.4 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE0 LJs as a function of $L_{\mathrm{xy}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.9 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE0 LJs as a function of $L_{\mathrm{xy}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 1.5 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.05 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.15 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.4 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.9 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 1.5 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $L_{\mathrm{xy}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.05 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $L_{\mathrm{xy}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.15 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $L_{\mathrm{xy}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.4 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $L_{\mathrm{xy}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.9 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of $L_{\mathrm{xy}}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 1.5 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE0 LJs as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $s_{d_{1}}$ for LJs with two $\gamma_{d}$'s for an \scalar mass of 2 GeV. For the $\gamma_{d}$, the kinematically allowed mass of 0.4 GeV is considered. The distributions for the other $s_{d_{1}}$ masses are very similar. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE0 LJs as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $s_{d_{1}}$ for LJs with two $\gamma_{d}$'s for an \scalar mass of 2 GeV. For the $\gamma_{d}$, the kinematically allowed mass of 0.9 GeV is considered. The distributions for the other $s_{d_{1}}$ masses are very similar. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE1 LJs as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $s_{d_{1}}$ for LJs with two $\gamma_{d}$'s for an \scalar mass of 2 GeV. For the $\gamma_{d}$, the kinematically allowed mass of 0.4 GeV is considered. The distributions for the other $s_{d_{1}}$ masses are very similar. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE1 LJs as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $s_{d_{1}}$ for LJs with two $\gamma_{d}$'s for an \scalar mass of 2 GeV. For the $\gamma_{d}$, the kinematically allowed mass of 0.9 GeV is considered. The distributions for the other $s_{d_{1}}$ masses are very similar. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $s_{d_{1}}$ for LJs with two $\gamma_{d}$'s for an \scalar mass of 2 GeV. For the $\gamma_{d}$, the kinematically allowed mass of 0.05 GeV is considered. The distributions for the other $s_{d_{1}}$ masses are very similar. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $s_{d_{1}}$ for LJs with two $\gamma_{d}$'s for an \scalar mass of 2 GeV. For the $\gamma_{d}$, the kinematically allowed mass of 0.15 GeV is considered. The distributions for the other $s_{d_{1}}$ masses are very similar. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $s_{d_{1}}$ for LJs with two $\gamma_{d}$'s for an \scalar mass of 2 GeV. For the $\gamma_{d}$, the kinematically allowed mass of 0.4 GeV is considered. The distributions for the other $s_{d_{1}}$ masses are very similar. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Reconstruction efficiency of TYPE2 LJs as a function of the $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ of the $s_{d_{1}}$ for LJs with two $\gamma_{d}$'s for an \scalar mass of 2 GeV. For the $\gamma_{d}$, the kinematically allowed mass of 0.9 GeV is considered. The distributions for the other $s_{d_{1}}$ masses are very similar. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Muon trigger efficiency, $\rm \varepsilon$(2mu6), as a function of $p_{T}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.4 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Muon trigger efficiency, $\rm \varepsilon$(2mu6), as a function of $p_{T}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.9 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Muon trigger efficiency, $\rm \varepsilon$(2mu6), as a function of $p_{T}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 1.5 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Muon trigger efficiency, $\rm \varepsilon$(2mu6), as a function of $\eta$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.4 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Muon trigger efficiency, $\rm \varepsilon$(2mu6), as a function of $\eta$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.9 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Muon trigger efficiency, $\rm \varepsilon$(2mu6), as a function of $\eta$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to \mu\mu$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 1.5 GeV. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $p_{T}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.05 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $p_{T}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.15 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $p_{T}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.4 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $p_{T}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.9 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $p_{T}$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 1.5 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $\eta$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.05 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $\eta$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.15 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $\eta$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.4 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $\eta$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 0.9 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

Calorimetric trigger efficiency as a function of $\eta$ of the $\gamma_{d}$ for $\gamma_{d} \to ee,\pi\pi$ obtained from the LJ gun MC samples with $\gamma_{d}$ masses 1.5 GeV. Similar distributions are obtained for LJs containing two dark photons. The uncertainties are statistical only.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The distribution of the reconstructed $\mathrm{T}_{5/3}$ mass for the data, the background, and three signal mass points.

Spectrum of ETmiss for the muon channel after the event selection. The spectrum is shown with the requirement MT > 252 GeV.

Spectrum of MT for the electron channel after the event selection.

Spectrum of MT for the muon channel after the event selection.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for WPRIME at 95% CL in the electron channel.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for W* at 95% CL in the electron channel.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for WPRIME at 95% CL in the muon channel.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for W* at 95% CL in the muon channel.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for WPRIME at 95% CL for the combination of the electron and muon channels.

Observed and expected limits on SIGMA*B for W* at 95% CL for the combination of the electron and muon channels.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 90% CL for the combination of the electron and muon channel for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on the DM-nucleon scattering cross-section as a function of M(chi) at 90% CL for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 90% CL in the electron for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 90% CL in the muon for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 95% CL in the electron for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 95% CL in the muon for various operators in the EFT.

Observed limits on M* as a function of the DM particle mass M(chi) at 95% CL for the combination of the electron and muon channel for various operators in the EFT.

Distribution of HT after the MTtau requirement for the 1-tau ''Tight'' SR. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in the CRs corresponding to MTtau below 130 GeV. Also shown is the expected signal from typical mSUGRA, GMSB and bRPV samples. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin.

Distribution of MTtau1 + MTtau2 in the 2tau channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR requirements on MTtau1 + MTtau2 and HT2j. To reduce the contributions from events with Z bosons decaying into tau leptons, the requirement MTtau1 + MTtau2 > 150 GeV is applied to all distributions. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in the CRs corresponding to HT2j below 550 GeV.

Distribution of HT2j in the 2tau channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR requirements on MTtau1 + MTtau2 and HT2j. To reduce the contributions from events with Z bosons decaying into tau leptons, the requirement MTtau1 + MTtau2 > 150 GeV is applied to all distributions. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in the CRs corresponding to HT2j below 550 GeV.

Distribution of the jet multiplicity in the 2tau channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR requirements on MTtau1 + MTtau2 and HT2j. To reduce the contributions from events with Z bosons decaying into tau leptons, the requirement MTtau1 + MTtau2 > 150 GeV is applied to all distributions. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in the CRs corresponding to HT2j below 550 GeV.

Distribution of the final kinematic variables in the tau+e channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR selections on Meff for the bRPV model. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in specific CRs. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin. There are no data events in the overflow bin after all analysis requirements are applied.

Distribution of the final kinematic variables in the tau+e channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR selections on MEFF for the GMSB model. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in specific CRs. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin. There are no data events in the overflow bin after all analysis requirements are applied.

Distribution of the final kinematic variables in the tau+e channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR selections on MET for the mSUGRA model. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in specific CRs. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin. There are no data events in the overflow bin after all analysis requirements are applied.

Distribution of the final kinematic variables in the tau+e channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR selections on MET for the nGM model. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in specific CRs. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin. There are no data events in the overflow bin after all analysis requirements are applied.

Distribution of the final kinematic variables in the tau+mu channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR selections on MEFF for the bRPV model. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in specific CRs. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin. There are no data events in the overflow bin after all analysis requirements are applied.

Distribution of the final kinematic variables in the tau+mu channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR selections on MEFF for the GMSB model. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in specific CRs. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin. There are no data events in the overflow bin after all analysis requirements are applied.

Distribution of the final kinematic variables in the tau+mu channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR selections on MET for the mSUGRA model. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in specific CRs. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin. There are no data events in the overflow bin after all analysis requirements are applied.

Distribution of the final kinematic variables in the tau+mu channel after all analysis requirements but the final SR selections on MET for the nGM model. The SM prediction includes the data-driven corrections discussed in the paper. MC events are normalized to data in specific CRs. The last bin in the expected background distribution is an overflow bin. There are no data events in the overflow bin after all analysis requirements are applied.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on the minimal GMSB model parameters Lambda and tan(beta) using a combination of all channels. The result is obtained using 20.3 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 8 TeV ATLAS data. Additional model parameters are M(mess) = 250 TeV, N5 = 3, mu>0 and Cgrav =1.

Expected 95% CL lower limits on the minimal GMSB model parameters Lambda and tan(beta) using a combination of all channels. The result is obtained using 20.3 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 8 TeV ATLAS data. Additional model parameters are M(mess) = 250 TeV, N5 = 3, mu>0 and Cgrav =1.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on the mSUGRA/CMSSM model parameters m0 and m1/2 for the combination of the 1tau, tau+e and tau+mu channels. Additional model parameters are A0 = -2m0, tan(beta) = 30 and sign(mu) = +1.

Expected 95% CL lower limits on the mSUGRA/CMSSM model parameters m0 and m1/2 for the combination of the 1tau, tau+e and tau+mu channels. Additional model parameters are A0 = -2m0, tan(beta) = 30 and sign(mu) = +1.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on the simplified nGM model parameters m(stau) and m(gluino) for the combination of the 2tau, tau+e and tau+mu channels. Additional squark and slepton mass parameters are set to 2.5 TeV, M1 = M2 = 2.5 TeV, and all trilinear coupling terms are set to zero. Also, the parameter mu is fixed to mu = 400 GeV.

Expected 95% CL lower limits on the simplified nGM model parameters m(stau) and m(gluino) for the combination of the 2tau, tau+e and tau+mu channels. Additional squark and slepton mass parameters are set to 2.5 TeV, M1 = M2 = 2.5 TeV, and all trilinear coupling terms are set to zero. Also, the parameter mu is fixed to mu = 400 GeV.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on the bRPV model parameters m0 and m1/2 for the combination of all channels. Additional model parameters are A0 = -2m0 , tan(beta) = 30 and sign(mu) = +1.

Expected 95% CL lower limits on the bRPV model parameters m0 and m1/2 for the combination of all channels. Additional model parameters are A0 = -2m0 , tan(beta) = 30 and sign(mu) = +1.

Cross section predictions for the nGM grid. For each signal point 25000 MC events have been generated.

Observed upper cross section limits for the nGM grid. For each signal point 25000 MC events have been generated. The limit is derived for the combination of the 2tau and the tau+lepton channels.

Systematic uncertainty for the GMSB grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Acceptance for the GMSB grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Efficiency for the GMSB grid in the 1-tau analysis.

The product of acceptance and efficiency for the GMSB grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Expected CLs values for the GMSB grid in the 1tau analysis.

Observed CLs values for the GMSB grid in the 1tau analysis.

Systematic uncertainty for the mSUGRA grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Acceptance for the mSUGRA grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Efficiency for the mSUGRA grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the mSUGRA grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Expected CLs values for the mSUGRA grid in the 1tau analysis.

Observed CLs values for the mSUGRA grid in the 1tau analysis.

Systematic uncertainty for the bRPV grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Acceptance for the bRPV grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Efficiency for the bRPV grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the bRPV grid in the 1-tau analysis.

Expected CLs values for the bRPV grid in the 1tau analysis.

Observed CLs values for the bRPV grid in the 1tau analysis.

Systematic uncertainty for the GMSB grid in the 2tau analysis.

Acceptance for the GMSB grid in the 2tau analysis.

Efficiency for the GMSB grid in the 2tau analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the GMSB grid in the 2tau analysis.

Expected CLs values for the GMSB grid in the 2tau analysis.

Observed CLs values for the GMSB grid in the 2tau analysis.

Systematic uncertainty for the nGM grid in the 2tau analysis.

Acceptance for the nGM grid in the 2tau analysis.

Efficiency for the nGM grid in the 2tau analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the nGM grid in the 2tau analysis.

Expected CLs values for the nGM grid in the 2tau analysis.

Observed CLs values for the nGM grid in the 2tau analysis.

Systematic uncertainty for the bRPV grid in the 2tau analysis.

Acceptance for the bRPV grid in the 2tau analysis.

Efficiency for the bRPV grid in the 2tau analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the bRPV grid in the 2tau analysis.

Expected CLs values for the bRPV grid in the 2tau analysis.

Observed CLs values for the bRPV grid in the 2tau analysis.

Systematic Uncertainty for the GMSB grid in the tau+e analysis.

Acceptance for the GMSB grid in the tau+e analysis.

Efficiency for the GMSB grid in the tau+e analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the GMSB grid in the tau+e analysis.

Expected CLs values for the GMSB grid in the tau+e analysis.

Observed CLs values for the GMSB grid in the tau+e analysis.

Systematic Uncertainty for the nGM grid in the tau+e analysis.

Acceptance for the nGM grid in the tau+e analysis.

Efficiency for the nGM grid in the tau+e analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the nGM grid in the tau+e analysis.

Expected CLs values for the nGM grid in the tau+e analysis.

Observed CLs values for the nGM grid in the tau+e analysis.

Systematic Uncertainty for the bRPV grid in the tau+e analysis.

Acceptance for the bRPV grid in the tau+e analysis.

Efficiency for the bRPV grid in the tau+e analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the bRPV grid in the tau+e analysis.

Expected CLs values for the bRPV grid in the tau+e analysis.

Observed CLs values for the bRPV grid in the tau+e analysis.

Systematic Uncertainty for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+e analysis.

Acceptance for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+e analysis.

Efficiency for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+e analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+e analysis.

Expected CLs values for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+e analysis.

Observed CLs values for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+e analysis.

Systematic Uncertainty for the GMSB grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Acceptance for the GMSB grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Efficiency for the GMSB grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the GMSB grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Expected CLs values for the GMSB grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Observed CLs values for the GMSB grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Systematic Uncertainty for the nGM grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Acceptance for the nGM grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Efficiency for the nGM grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the nGM grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Expected CLs values for the nGM grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Observed CLs values for the nGM grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Systematic Uncertainty for the bRPV grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Acceptance for the bRPV grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Efficiency for the bRPV grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the bRPV grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Expected CLs values for the bRPV grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Observed CLs values for the bRPV grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Systematic Uncertainty for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Acceptance for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Efficiency for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Product of acceptance and efficiency for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Expected CLs values for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Observed CLs values for the mSUGRA grid in the tau+mu analysis.

Example cutflow for three benchmark signal points in the 1-tau channel. For the GMSB point 50000 events have been generated, 20000 for nGM and 20000 for mSUGRA respectively. These event numbers are then normalised to 21 fb^{-1} luminosity.

Example cutflow for three benchmark signal points in the 2tau analysis. Specific SRs are indicated at the respective cut. Event numbers are normalised to 21 fb^{-1} luminosity. For the GMSB point 50000 events have been generated, 20000 for nGM and 25000 for bRPV respectively.

Example cutflow for four benchmark signal points in the tau+e analysis. Event numbers are normalised to 21 fb^{-1} luminosity. For the GMSB point 50000 events have been generated, 20000 for nGM, 20000 for mSUGRA and 25000 for bRPV respectively.

Example cutflow for four benchmark signal points in the tau+mu analysis. Event numbers are normalised to 21 fb^{-1} luminosity. For the GMSB point 50000 events have been generated, 20000 for nGM, 20000 for mSUGRA and 25000 for bRPV respectively.