Number of expected Standard Model background events including total statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature (calculated before applying the statistical fitting procedure), number of observed events, and the observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the visible $\tau\nu$ production cross section, $\sigma_{\rm vis} = \sigma(pp \to \tau\nu +X) \cdot \mathcal{A} \cdot \varepsilon$, for $m_{\rm T}$ thresholds ranging from 250 to 1800 GeV. See HepData abstract for details on how to use this data for reinterpretation.

Number of expected Standard Model background events including total statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature (calculated before applying the statistical fitting procedure), number of observed events, and the observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the visible $\tau\nu$ production cross section, $\sigma_{\rm vis} = \sigma(pp \to \tau\nu +X) \cdot \mathcal{A} \cdot \varepsilon$, for $m_{\rm T}$ thresholds ranging from 250 to 1800 GeV. See HepData abstract for details on how to use this data for reinterpretation.

Number of expected Standard Model background events including total statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature (calculated before applying the statistical fitting procedure), number of observed events, and the observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the visible $\tau\nu$ production cross section, $\sigma_{\rm vis} = \sigma(pp \to \tau\nu +X) \cdot \mathcal{A} \cdot \varepsilon$, for $m_{\rm T}$ thresholds ranging from 250 to 1800 GeV. See HepData abstract for details on how to use this data for reinterpretation.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on cross section times $\tau\nu$ branching fraction for $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on cross section times $\tau\nu$ branching fraction for $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on cross section times $\tau\nu$ branching fraction for $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$.

Regions of the non-universal G(221) parameter space excluded at 95% CL.

Regions of the non-universal G(221) parameter space excluded at 95% CL.

Regions of the non-universal G(221) parameter space excluded at 95% CL.

Number of expected $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$, $W^{\prime}_{\rm NU}$, Standard Model background and observed events passing the optimal $m_{\rm T}$ threshold for each considered signal mass hypothesis. The expectations include the total statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature. The yields and uncertainties are calculated before applying the statistical fitting procedure.

Number of expected $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$, $W^{\prime}_{\rm NU}$, Standard Model background and observed events passing the optimal $m_{\rm T}$ threshold for each considered signal mass hypothesis. The expectations include the total statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature. The yields and uncertainties are calculated before applying the statistical fitting procedure.

Number of expected $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$, $W^{\prime}_{\rm NU}$, Standard Model background and observed events passing the optimal $m_{\rm T}$ threshold for each considered signal mass hypothesis. The expectations include the total statistical and systematic uncertainty added in quadrature. The yields and uncertainties are calculated before applying the statistical fitting procedure.

Acceptance for $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ as a function of the $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass, shown after successively applying selection at generator-level. The acceptance times efficiency is calculated with respect to all $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM} \to \tau\nu$ events with a generated $\tau\nu$ mass above 120 GeV. The "selected tau" criteria include the requirement of a $\tau_{\rm had-vis}$ with $p_{\rm T}$ > 50 GeV and $|\eta|$ < 2.4. The $m_{\rm T}$ threshold for each $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass is defined in Table 5.

Acceptance for $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ as a function of the $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass, shown after successively applying selection at generator-level. The acceptance times efficiency is calculated with respect to all $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM} \to \tau\nu$ events with a generated $\tau\nu$ mass above 120 GeV. The "selected tau" criteria include the requirement of a $\tau_{\rm had-vis}$ with $p_{\rm T}$ > 50 GeV and $|\eta|$ < 2.4. The $m_{\rm T}$ threshold for each $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass is defined in Table 5.

Acceptance for $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ as a function of the $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass, shown after successively applying selection at generator-level. The acceptance times efficiency is calculated with respect to all $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM} \to \tau\nu$ events with a generated $\tau\nu$ mass above 120 GeV. The "selected tau" criteria include the requirement of a $\tau_{\rm had-vis}$ with $p_{\rm T}$ > 50 GeV and $|\eta|$ < 2.4. The $m_{\rm T}$ threshold for each $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass is defined in Table 5.

Acceptance times efficiency for $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ as a function of the $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass, shown after successively applying selection at reconstruction-level. The acceptance times efficiency is calculated with respect to all $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM} \to \tau\nu$ events with a generated $\tau\nu$ mass above 120 GeV. "Preselection" includes all criteria prior to those shown. The $m_{\rm T}$ threshold for each $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass is defined in Table 5.

Acceptance times efficiency for $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ as a function of the $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass, shown after successively applying selection at reconstruction-level. The acceptance times efficiency is calculated with respect to all $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM} \to \tau\nu$ events with a generated $\tau\nu$ mass above 120 GeV. "Preselection" includes all criteria prior to those shown. The $m_{\rm T}$ threshold for each $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass is defined in Table 5.

Acceptance times efficiency for $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ as a function of the $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass, shown after successively applying selection at reconstruction-level. The acceptance times efficiency is calculated with respect to all $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM} \to \tau\nu$ events with a generated $\tau\nu$ mass above 120 GeV. "Preselection" includes all criteria prior to those shown. The $m_{\rm T}$ threshold for each $W^{\prime}_{\rm SSM}$ mass is defined in Table 5.

Reconstruction efficiency as a function of $m_{\rm T}$ (see HepData abstract for parameterization), defined as the ratio of the number of $\tau\nu$ events remaining after applying the full selection at reconstruction-level to those remaining after applying the fiducial selection at generator-level. The efficiency is largely model independent, with an uncertainty of ~10% due to model choice.

Reconstruction efficiency as a function of $m_{\rm T}$ (see HepData abstract for parameterization), defined as the ratio of the number of $\tau\nu$ events remaining after applying the full selection at reconstruction-level to those remaining after applying the fiducial selection at generator-level. The efficiency is largely model independent, with an uncertainty of ~10% due to model choice.

Reconstruction efficiency as a function of $m_{\rm T}$ (see HepData abstract for parameterization), defined as the ratio of the number of $\tau\nu$ events remaining after applying the full selection at reconstruction-level to those remaining after applying the fiducial selection at generator-level. The efficiency is largely model independent, with an uncertainty of ~10% due to model choice.

The observed values of Sigma*BR(H->ZZ*), the SM expected cross section sBRsm and their ratio Sigma*BR/(Sigma*BR)_SM for the inclusive production and in each Stage-0 and reduced Stage-1 production bin for an integrated luminosity of 36.1/fb and at sqrt(s)=13 TeV. The bbH contribution is considered as a part of the ggF production bins. The upper limits correspond to the 95% CL obtained with pseudo-experiments using the CL_s method. The uncertainties are given as (stat.)+(exp.)+(th.) for Stage 0 and as (stat.)+(syst.) for reduced Stage 1. Values without uncertainity are 95% CL upper limits.

Signal acceptance obtained as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events satisfying the event selection criteria in each reconstructed event category over the total number of events generated in the phase space specified by a given reduced Stage-1 ggF production bin. Results are obtained in bins of BDT discriminants using coarse binning with several bins merged into one. Values less than 0.0001 are set to 0.

Signal acceptance obtained as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events satisfying the event selection criteria in each reconstructed event category over the total number of events generated in the phase space specified by the given reduced Stage-1 VBF and VH production bins. Results are obtained in bins of BDT discriminants using coarse binning with several bins merged into one. Values less than 0.0001 are set to 0.

The signal strengths mu for the inclusive production and in each Stage-0 and reduced Stage-1 production bin for an integrated luminosity of 36.1/fb and at sqrt(s)=13 TeV. The bbH contribution is considered as a part of the ggF production bins. The upper limits correspond to the 95% CL obtained with pseudo-experiments using the CL_s method. The uncertainties are given as (stat.)+(exp.)+(th.) for Stage 0 and as (stat.)+(syst.) for reduced Stage 1. Values without uncertainity are 95% CL upper limits.

Signal acceptance (in percent) obtained as the ratio of the number of simulated signal events satisfying the event selection criteria in each reconstructed event category to the total number of generated events, as predicted by the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO generator assuming the SM coupling tensor structure or the BSM tensor structure with ($\kappa_{SM}$ = 1, | $\kappa_{AVV}$ | $\neq$ 0).

Number of expected ggF Higgs boson events for an integrated luminosity of $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV, as predicted by the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO generator assuming the SM coupling tensor structure or the BSM tensor structure with ($\kappa_{SM}=1$, $|\kappa_{Avv}|=6$). The highest-order SM predicition for the sum of the ggF, ttH and bbH contributions is also shown for comparison.

Number of expected VBF and VH Higgs boson events for an integrated luminosity of $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV, as predicted by the MadGraph5_aMC@NLO generator assuming the SM coupling tensor structure or the BSM tensor structure with ($\kappa_{SM}=1$, $|\kappa_{Avv}|=5$). The highest-order SM predicition for the sum of the VBF and VH contributions is also shown for comparison.

Expected Correlation Matrix for Stage 0

Observed Correlation Matrix for Stage 0. As upper limits are derived for ttH and VH POIs using the observed data, the corresponding terms inside the matrix are set to zero.

Expected Correlation Matrix for Reduced Stage 1

Observed Correlation Matrix for Reduced Stage 1. As upper limits are derived for ttH and VH POIs using the observed data, the corresponding terms inside the matrix are set to zero.

Expected Covariance Matrix for Stage 0

Observed Covariance Matrix for Stage 0. As upper limits are derived for ttH and VH POIs using the observed data, the corresponding terms inside the matrix are set to zero.

Expected Covariance Matrix for Reduced Stage 1

Observed Covariance Matrix for Reduced Stage 1. As upper limits are derived for ttH and VH POIs using the observed data, the corresponding terms inside the matrix are set to zero.

Likelihood contours at 68% CL in the (Sigma_ggF*B , Sigma_VBF*B ) plane

Likelihood contours at 95% CL in the (Sigma_ggF*B , Sigma_VBF*B ) plane

Expected two-dimensional negative log-likelihood scans for $\kappa_{HVV}$ versus $\kappa_{AVV}$ coupling parameters using $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ of data and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV. The couplings $\kappa_{Hgg}$ and $\kappa_{SM}$ are fixed to the SM value of one in the fit. The 95% CL exclusion limits are shown.

Observed two-dimensional negative log-likelihood scans for $\kappa_{HVV}$ versus $\kappa_{AVV}$ coupling parameters using $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ of data and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV. The couplings $\kappa_{Hgg}$ and $\kappa_{SM}$ are fixed to the SM value of one in the fit. The 95% CL exclusion limits are shown.

Expected two-dimensional negative log-likelihood scans for $\kappa_{HVV}$ versus $\kappa_{AVV}$ coupling parameters using $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ of data and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV. The coupling $\kappa_{Hgg}$ is fixed to the SM value of one in the fit. The coupling $\kappa_{SM}$ is left as a free parameter of the fit. The 95% CL exclusion limits are shown.

Observed two-dimensional negative log-likelihood scans for $\kappa_{HVV}$ versus $\kappa_{AVV}$ coupling parameters using $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ of data and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV. The coupling $\kappa_{Hgg}$ is fixed to the SM value of one in the fit. The coupling $\kappa_{SM}$ is left as a free parameter of the fit. The 95% CL exclusion limits are shown.

Expected two-dimensional negative log-likelihood scans for $\kappa_{HVV}$ versus $\kappa_{SM}$ coupling parameters using $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ of data and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV. The 95% CL exclusion limits are shown.

Observed two-dimensional negative log-likelihood scans for $\kappa_{HVV}$ versus $\kappa_{SM}$ coupling parameters using $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ of data and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV. The 95% CL exclusion limits are shown.

Expected two-dimensional negative log-likelihood scans for $\kappa_{AVV}$ versus $\kappa_{SM}$ coupling parameters using $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ of data and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV. The 95% CL exclusion limits are shown.

Observed two-dimensional negative log-likelihood scans for $\kappa_{AVV}$ versus $\kappa_{SM}$ coupling parameters using $\mathcal L=36.1 \text{fb}^{-1}$ of data and at $\sqrt{\mathrm{s}}=13$ TeV. The 95% CL exclusion limits are shown.

Observed and expected upper limit on the cross-section for $pp \to H^{++}H^{--}$ for a combination of partial branching ratios of $B(ee) = 30\%$, $B(e \mu ) = 40\%$, and $B( \mu \mu ) = 30\%$.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}e^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}e^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to \mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to \mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Minimum observed and expected lower limit (among all partial branching ratio combinations) on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to \ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{L}^{\pm\pm} \to \ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}e^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}e^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to \mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to \mu^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to e^{\pm}\mu^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Minimum observed and expected lower limit (among all partial branching ratio combinations) on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass as a function of the branching ratio $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to \ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm})$ where $B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to X) = 1 - B(H_{R}^{\pm\pm} \to \ell^{\pm}\ell^{\pm})$, with "$X$" not entering any of the signal regions.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 100%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 100%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 90%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 90%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 80%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 80%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 70%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 70%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 60%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 60%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 50%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 50%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 40%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 40%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 30%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 30%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 20%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 20%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{L}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 10%.

Observed and expected lower limit on the $H_{R}^{\pm\pm}$ boson mass for all branching ratio combinations ($B(ee)$,$B(e\mu)$,$B(\mu\mu)$) that sum to 10%.

Reconstructed mtb distribution in data and for the background after the fit to the data in the signal region SR2. The statistical uncertainty on data points is calculated using assymetric Poisson confidence intervals.

Reconstructed mtb distribution in data and for the background after the fit to the data in the signal region SR3. The statistical uncertainty on data points is calculated using assymetric Poisson confidence intervals.

Reconstructed mtb distribution in data and for the background after the fit to the data in the validation region VR. The statistical uncertainty on data points is calculated using assymetric Poisson confidence intervals.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-7j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j80-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-8j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-9j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-10j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-0b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-1b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

Number of signal events expected for 36.1 fb$^{-1}$ at different stages of the event selection for the signal region SR-11j50-2b in a pMSSM inspired model where m($\tilde{g}$) = 1400 GeV and m($\tilde{\chi}_{0}^{1}$) = 200 GeV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-11j50-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-0b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-1b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j80-2b. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-8j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-9j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b-MJ340. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

$E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}} / \sqrt{H_{\mathrm{T}}}$ distribution in signal region SR-10j50-0b-MJ500. Two benchmark signal models are overlaid on the plot for comparison. Labelled `pMSSM' and `2-step', they show signal distributions from the example SUSY models (as described in the paper): a pMSSM slice model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{\pm}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV and a cascade decay model with ($m \tilde{g}$, $m \tilde{\chi_{1}^{0}}$) = (1300, 200) GeV.

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

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

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 50 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

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

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

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with one inclusive b-jet required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the flavour stream with two inclusive b-jets required and a minimum transverse momentum of 80 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 340 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 340 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 500 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

Degree of multijet closure for signal and vaidation regions (prior to the leptonic background fit) for the fat-jet stream with MJSigma above 500 GeV. The solid lines are the pre-fit predicted numbers of events and the points are the observed numbers. The blue hatched band shows only the statistical (MC and data) uncertainty on the background estimate. The template closure uncertainty for each SR bin is given by the maximal deviation of data from prediction in any non-SR bin to its left on this plot (although those for 80 GeV regions are independent of deviations in 50 GeV regions).

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for 2Step signal points for the best-expected signal region.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for 2Step signal points for the best-expected signal region.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for RPV signal points for the best-expected signal region.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for RPV signal points for the best-expected signal region.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for gtt off-shell signal points for the best-expected signal region.

95% CLs observed upper limit on model cross-section (in fb) for gtt off-shell signal points for the best-expected signal region.

Performance of the SR-8j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ340 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-0b-MJ500 for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-10j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-11j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-11j50-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-11j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-11j50-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-11j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-11j50-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-7j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-7j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-7j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-7j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-7j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-7j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-8j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j80-0b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

Performance of the SR-9j80-2b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of hadron and electron background in electroweak channel in the low-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 low-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 low-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 low-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 low-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 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 total background 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 total background 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 observed data 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 observed data 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 fake tracklet in strong 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 fake tracklet in strong 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 muon background 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 muon background 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 hadron and electron 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 hadron and electron 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 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 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 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 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 total background 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 total background 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 observed data 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 observed data 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 fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-Emiss region.

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

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of fake tracklet in electroweak channel in the high-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 muon background 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 muon background 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 hadron and electron 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 hadron and electron 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 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 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 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 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 total background 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 total background 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 observed data 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 observed data 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 fake tracklet in strong 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 fake tracklet in strong 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 muon background 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 muon background 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 hadron and electron 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 hadron and electron 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 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 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 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 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 total background 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 total background 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.

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

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

Pixel-tracklet $p_{T}$ spectrum of observed data 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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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 ($m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm}}$).

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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 generator-level acceptance after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos as a function of the chargino $eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).

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 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 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 $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos 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 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 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 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 generator-level acceptance after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos as a function of the chargino $\eta$ and chargino decay radius (at generator level).

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 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 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.

The generator-level acceptance $\times$ efficiency after reconstruction, for selecting and reconstructing charginos 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 anticorrelation between different backgrounds.

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.

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.

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.

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-tracket background events is small.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

<b>Upper Limits 9</b> Expected and observed 95% CL cross-section upper limits as a function of the universal gaugino mass m_1/2 for the NUHM2 model. The gray numbers indicate the values of the observed limit. The green and yellow bands around the expected limit indicate the &plusmn; 1&sigma; and &plusmn; 2&sigma; uncertainties, respectively. The expected signal production cross-sections as well as the associated uncertainty are indicated with the blue solid and dashed lines. The lower x-axis indicates the difference between the &chi;&#771;₂⁰ and &chi;&#771;₁⁰ masses for different values of m_1/2. A fit of signals to the m_{&#8467;&#8467;} spectrum is used to derive this limit.

<b>Upper Limits 10</b> Expected and observed 95% CL cross-section upper limits as a function of the universal gaugino mass m_1/2 for the NUHM2 model. The gray numbers indicate the values of the observed limit. The green and yellow bands around the expected limit indicate the &plusmn; 1&sigma; and &plusmn; 2&sigma; uncertainties, respectively. The expected signal production cross-sections as well as the associated uncertainty are indicated with the blue solid and dashed lines. The lower x-axis indicates the difference between the &chi;&#771;₂⁰ and &chi;&#771;₁⁰ masses for different values of m_1/2. A fit of signals to the m_{&#8467;&#8467;} spectrum is used to derive this limit.

<b>Upper Limits 10</b> Expected and observed 95% CL cross-section upper limits as a function of the universal gaugino mass m_1/2 for the NUHM2 model. The gray numbers indicate the values of the observed limit. The green and yellow bands around the expected limit indicate the &plusmn; 1&sigma; and &plusmn; 2&sigma; uncertainties, respectively. The expected signal production cross-sections as well as the associated uncertainty are indicated with the blue solid and dashed lines. The lower x-axis indicates the difference between the &chi;&#771;₂⁰ and &chi;&#771;₁⁰ masses for different values of m_1/2. A fit of signals to the m_{&#8467;&#8467;} spectrum is used to derive this limit.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4j-2200. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 800 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6j-2600. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jB-2400. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1600 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 1590 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 60 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2j-1200. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 900 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 500 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2j-1600. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 500 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2j-2000. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2j-2400. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1500 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2j-3600. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR2jB-1600. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1600 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 1590 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 60 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR3j-1300. For signal, a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 600 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 595 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4j-1400. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4j-1800. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4j-2600. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR4j-3000. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR5j-1600. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR5j-1700. For signal, a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 1800 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 0 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR5j-2000. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR5j-2600. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6j-1200. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6j-1800. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.

Observed and expected background and signal effective mass distributions for SR6j-2200. For signal, a gluino onestep decay model where gluinos have mass of 1705 GeV, the chargino1 has mass of 865 GeV and the neutralino1 has mass of 25 GeV is shown.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from searches in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the light-flavor squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from searches in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay directly into the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from searches in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the squark and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from searches in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from RJR-based searches on the gluino and lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate the second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and second lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate the second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and second lightest neutralino masses in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate the second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the squark mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where squarks are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow q W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{q} \rightarrow q \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino mass and the mass gap ratio x in a SUSY scenario where gluinos are produced in pairs and decay via an intermediate lightest chargino or second lightest neutralino to the lightest neutralino, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{\pm} \rightarrow qq W^{\pm} \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$, or $\tilde{g} \rightarrow qq \tilde{\chi}_{2}^{0} \rightarrow qq Z/h \tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=0$ GeV.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=0$ GeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=0$ GeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=695$ GeV.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=695$ GeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=695$ GeV.

Observed 95% CL upper limit on the signal cross-section from Meff-based searches for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=995$ GeV.

Expected 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=995$ GeV.

Observed 95% CL exclusion contours from Meff-based searches on the gluino and squark masses for inclusive squark-gluino production in pMSSM models with $m_{\tilde{\chi}_{1}^0}=995$ GeV.

Cut-flow of Meff-2j for three supersymmetric models: a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 2000 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 600 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (20000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1500 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cut-flow of Meff-3j,4j for three supersymmetric models: a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 2000 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 600 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (20000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1500 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cut-flow of Meff-5j,6j for three supersymmetric models: a gluino direct decay model where gluinos have mass of 2000 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1200 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 600 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (20000 generated events); and a squark direct decay model where squarks have mass of 1500 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ and the $\tilde{\chi}_{1}^{0}$ has mass of 0 $\mathrm{\ Ge\kern -0.1em V}$ (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cut-flow for RJR-based SR's targeting squarks for SS direct model points. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cut-flow for RJR-based SR's targeting gluinos for GG direct model points. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.

Cut-flow for RJR-based SR's targeting compressed mass-spectra signals for SS direct and GG direct model points. Expected yields are normalized to a luminosity of 36.1 fb$^{-1}$.