The timing distribution of the background sources predicted to contribute to the signal region, compared to those for a representative signal model. The time is defined by the jet in the event with the largest $t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ passing the relevant selection. The distributions for the major backgrounds are taken from control regions and normalized to the predictions. The observed data is shown by the black points. No events are observed in data for $t_{\mathrm{jet}} > 3\,$ns (indicated with a vertical black line).

The product of the acceptance and efficiency in the $c\tau_{0}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{g}}$ plane for the GMSB model, after all requirements.

The product of the acceptance and efficiency in the $c\tau_{0}$ vs. $m_{\tilde{g}}$ plane for the GMSB model, after all requirements.

The observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed.

The observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed.

The observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The observed and expected upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the gluino pair production cross section for a gluino GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=2400$ GeV. The one (two) standard deviation variation in the expected limit is shown in the inner green (outer yellow) band. The blue solid line shows the observed limit obtained by the CMS displaced jet search

The observed and expected upper limits at $95\%$ CL on the gluino pair production cross section for a gluino GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=2400$ GeV. The one (two) standard deviation variation in the expected limit is shown in the inner green (outer yellow) band. The blue solid line shows the observed limit obtained by the CMS displaced jet search

The distribution (normalized to unity) of number of ECAL cells hit in the jet for jets in a background enriched data sample (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} > 1/12$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$ and $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$) and for signal jets satisfying signal region requirements (except those on $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$ and $N^{\mathrm{cell}}_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of number of ECAL cells hit in the jet for jets in a background enriched data sample (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf > 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$ and $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$) and for signal jets satisfying signal region requirements (except those on $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$ and $N^{\mathrm{cell}}_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $\mathrm{HEF}$ for a data sample enriched in beam halo and noise jets (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30 \,\mathrm{GeV}$, $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} < 1/12$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $\mathrm{HEF}$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $\mathrm{HEF}$ for a data sample enriched in beam halo and noise jets (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30 \,\mathrm{GeV}$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf < 0.08$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $\mathrm{HEF}$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $E_{\mathrm{HCAL}}$ for a data sample enriched in beam halo and noise jets (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30 \,\mathrm{GeV}$, $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} < 1/12$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $E_{\mathrm{HCAL}}$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $E_{\mathrm{HCAL}}$ for a data sample enriched in beam halo and noise jets (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30 \,\mathrm{GeV}$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf < 0.08$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $E_{\mathrm{HCAL}}$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ for data sample enriched in jets from noise (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} > 1/12$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20 \,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}$)

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ for data sample enriched in jets from noise (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf > 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20 \,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}$)

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}$ for data sample enriched in jets from noise (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} > 1/12$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20 \,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}$)

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}$ for data sample enriched in jets from noise (satisfying $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf > 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20 \,\mathrm{GeV}$ and $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$) and for signal jets passing signal region selections (except on $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ and $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}$)

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction}$ for a data sample enriched in main bunch backgrounds (satisfying $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$, $|t_{\mathrm{jet}}| < 3\,\mathrm{ns}$ and $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} >20\,\mathrm{GeV}$) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction}$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $p_\mathrm{T}tf$ for a data sample enriched in main bunch backgrounds (satisfying $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$, $|t_{\mathrm{jet}}| < 3\,\mathrm{ns}$ and $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} >20\,\mathrm{GeV}$) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $p_\mathrm{T}tf$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$ for a data sample enriched in beam halo (satisfying $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} < 1/12$, $\mathrm{HEF} < 0.2$, $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$ and $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$)

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$ for a data sample enriched in beam halo (satisfying $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf < 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} < 0.2$, $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} < -3\,\mathrm{ns}$ and $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}}$)

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{DT}})$ for a data sample enriched in cosmic muons (satisfying $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} < 1/12$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} > 3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and failing the HCAL noise rejection quality filters) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{DT}})$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{DT}})$ for a data sample enriched in cosmic muons (satisfying $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf < 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} > 3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and failing the HCAL noise rejection quality filters) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{DT}})$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{RPC}})$ for a data sample enriched in cosmic muons (satisfying $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} < 1/12$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} > 3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and failing the HCAL noise rejection quality filters) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{RPC}})$).

The distribution (normalized to unity) of $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{RPC}})$ for a data sample enriched in cosmic muons (satisfying $E^{\mathrm{CSC}}_\mathrm{ECAL}/E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} < 0.8$, $p_\mathrm{T} > 30\,\mathrm{GeV}$, $|\eta| < 1.48$, $p_\mathrm{T}tf < 0.08$, $\mathrm{HEF} > 0.2$, $t^{\mathrm{RMS}}_\mathrm{jet}/t_{\mathrm{jet}} < 0.4$, $t_{\mathrm{jet}} > 3\,\mathrm{ns}$, $E_{\mathrm{ECAL}} > 20\,\mathrm{GeV}$ and failing the HCAL noise rejection quality filters) and for signal jets passing signal selections (except on $\mathrm{max}(\Delta \phi_{\mathrm{RPC}})$).

Distribution of $t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ for jets with the full Run 2 dataset with no cleaning selection applied (a) and after all jet cleaning selections are applied (b) in events satisfying the trigger requirements and satisfying $p_T^\mathrm{miss} > 300$. The jets are required to pass an inverted selection of $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} > 1/12$ to enrich the sample in those originating from main and satellite bunch backgrounds. The cleaning selections are shown to reduce the backgrounds by many orders of magnitude.

Distribution of $t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ for jets with the full Run 2 dataset with no cleaning selection applied (a) and after all jet cleaning selections are applied (b) in events satisfying the trigger requirements and satisfying $p_T^\mathrm{miss} > 300$. The jets are required to pass an inverted selection of $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} > 0.08$ to enrich the sample in those originating from main and satellite bunch backgrounds. The cleaning selections are shown to reduce the backgrounds by many orders of magnitude.

Distribution of $t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ for jets with the full Run 2 dataset in events satisfying the trigger requirements and satisfying $p_T^\mathrm{miss} < 300$. The jets are required to pass an inverted selection of $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} > 1/12$ to enrich the sample in those originating from main and satellite bunch backgrounds (all other jet cleaning selections are applied). Clear contributions from jets from satellite bunch collisions can be seen peaked around -5, 5 and 10 ns.

Distribution of $t_{\mathrm{jet}}$ for jets with the full Run 2 dataset in events satisfying the trigger requirements and satisfying $p_T^\mathrm{miss} < 300$. The jets are required to pass an inverted selection of $PV_{\rm track}^{\rm fraction} > 0.08$ to enrich the sample in those originating from main and satellite bunch backgrounds (all other jet cleaning selections are applied). Clear contributions from jets from satellite bunch collisions can be seen peaked around -5, 5 and 10 ns.

Contribution to the delayed time of jets from the $\beta$ of the gluino is plotted against the delay contribution from the difference (assuming straight line paths) between the path taken by the gluino and the particle forming the jet from the path length for a particle travelling directly to the same position on the ECAL barrel for gluino $c\tau_{0} = 10$ m and mass of 1000 Gev (top) and 3000 GeV (bottom). The dominant contribution is shown to be the gluino $\beta$.

Contribution to the delayed time of jets from the $\beta$ of the gluino is plotted against the delay contribution from the difference (assuming straight line paths) between the path taken by the gluino and the particle forming the jet from the path length for a particle travelling directly to the same position on the ECAL barrel for gluino $c\tau_{0} = 10$ m and mass of 1000 Gev (top) and 3000 GeV (bottom). The dominant contribution is shown to be the gluino $\beta$.

Selection efficiencies for the GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=1000$ and various proper decay lengths

Selection efficiencies for the GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=1000$ and various proper decay lengths

Selection efficiencies for the GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=2400$ and various proper decay lengths

Selection efficiencies for the GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=2400$ and various proper decay lengths

Selection efficiencies for the GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=3000$ and various proper decay lengths

Selection efficiencies for the GMSB model with $m_{\tilde{g}}=3000$ and various proper decay lengths

The observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The observed upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected plus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected plus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected minus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected minus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section relative to the theoretical cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected plus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected plus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected minus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

The expected minus 1 $\sigma_{\mathrm{experiment}}$ upper limits at $95\%$ CL for the gluino pair production cross section in the GMSB model, shown in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ and $c\tau_{0}$. A branching fraction of $100\%$ for the gluino decay to a gluon and a gravitino is assumed. The area below the thick black curve represents the observed exclusion region, while the dashed red lines indicate the expected limits and their $\pm 1$ standard deviation ranges from experimental uncertainties. The thin black lines show the effect of the theoretical uncertainties on the signal cross section.

Measured misidentification probability distribution as a function of track multiplicity for the EMJ-1 criteria group defined in Table 2. The red up-pointing triangles are for b jets while the blue down-pointing triangles are for light-flavor jets. The horizontal lines on the data points indicate the variable bin width.

The $H_\mathrm{T}$ distribution for the observed data events (black points) and the predicted background estimation (blue) for selection set 8 (SM QCD-enhanced), requiring at least two jets tagged by loose emerging jet criteria.

The number of associated tracks distribution for the observed data events (black points) and the predicted background estimation (blue) for selection set 8 (SM QCD-enhanced), requiring at least two jets tagged by loose emerging jet criteria.

The $H_\mathrm{T}$ distribution for the observed data events (black points) and the predicted background estimation (blue) for selection set 9 (SM QCD-enhanced), requiring at least one jet tagged by loose emerging jet criteria and large $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$.

The number of associated tracks distribution for the observed data events (black points) and the predicted background estimation (blue) for selection set 9 (SM QCD-enhanced), requiring at least one jet tagged by loose emerging jet criteria and large $p_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$.

Upper limits at 95% CL on the signal cross section for models with dark pion mass $(m_{\pi_\mathrm{DK}})$ of 5 GeV in the proper decay length $(c\tau_{\pi_\mathrm{DK}})$ versus dark mediator mass $(m_{\mathrm{X_{DK}}})$ plane.

Dark mediator mass exclusion limits at 95% CL derived from theoretical cross sections for models with dark pion mass $(m_{\pi_\mathrm{DK}})$ of 5 GeV in the proper decay length $(c\tau_{\pi_\mathrm{DK}})$ versus dark mediator mass $(m_{\mathrm{X_{DK}}})$ plane.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

No description provided.

The particle-level di-jet differential cross section. The systematic uncertainty on the data contains contributions from track finding efficiency, track transverse momentum resolution, calorimeter energy resolution, and unfolding uncertainties. For the theory, values are given for the underlying event and hadronization (UEH) correction uncertainty and the quadrature sum of the UEH and theoretical uncertainties. Both the UEH and theoretical uncertainties include contributions from factorization and renormalization scale uncertainties and PDF uncertainties. An 8.8% uncertainty common to all points due to the integrated luminosity determination is also present, but not included in the systematic values quoted below.

Values of gluon X1 and X2 obtained from the PYTHIA detector-level simulation for the same-sign di-jet topology compared to the gluon X distribution for inclusive jets. The inclusive distribution has been scaled down by a factor of 20 compared to the di-jet distributions.

Values of gluon X1 and X2 obtained from the PYTHIA detector-level simulation for the opposite-sign di-jet topology compared to the gluon X distribution for inclusive jets. The inclusive distribution has been scaled down by a factor of 20 compared to the di-jet distributions.

Di-jet A_LL asymmetry vs parton-level invariant mass for the same-sign di-jet topology. The systematic uncertainty on the mass includes contributions from jet energy scale, the correction to parton-level, and the difference between NLO and PYTHIA cross sections. The systematic uncertainty on the asymmetry includes contributions from trigger and reconstruction bias and residual transverse beam polarization components. A 6.5% uncertainty common to all points due to uncertainty on the measured beam polarizations is also present, but not included in the uncertainties quoted below.

Theoretical predictions for the di-jet A_LL asymmetry for the same-sign topology using the DSSV14 and NNPDFpol1.1 polarized PDF sets. The DSSV14 prediction is presented without uncertainty while the systematic uncertainty on the NNPDFpol1.1 prediction contains contributions from factorization and renormalization scale uncertainties and PDF uncertainties.

Di-jet A_LL asymmetry vs parton-level invariant mass for the opposite-sign di-jet topology. The systematic uncertainty on the mass includes contributions from jet energy scale, the correction to parton-level, and the difference between NLO and PYTHIA cross sections. The systematic uncertainty on the asymmetry includes contributions from trigger and reconstruction bias and residual transverse beam polarization components. A 6.5% uncertainty common to all points due to uncertainty on the measured beam polarizations is also present, but not included in the uncertainties quoted below.

Theoretical predictions for the di-jet A_LL asymmetry for the opposite-sign topology using the DSSV14 and NNPDFpol1.1 polarized PDF sets. The DSSV14 prediction is presented without uncertainty while the systematic uncertainty on the NNPDFpol1.1 prediction contains contributions from factorization and renormalization scale uncertainties and PDF uncertainties.

NLO cross sections and selection efficiencies (assuming $\beta$ = 1) for different signal points.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section of a narrow resonance and the branching fraction $\sigma(gg \to X) B(X \to HH \to bbbb)$ for HPHP category. Theory curves corresponding to WED models with radion are superimposed.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section of a narrow resonance and the branching fraction $\sigma(gg \to X) B(X \to HH \to bbbb)$ for HPLP category. Theory curves corresponding to WED models with radion are superimposed.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section of a narrow resonance and the branching fraction $\sigma(gg \to X) B(X \to HH \to bbbb)$ for LPHP category. Theory curves corresponding to WED models with radion are superimposed.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the product of cross section and the branching fraction $\sigma(gg \to X) B(X \to HH \to bbbb)$ for HPHP, HPLP and LPHP categories combined. The one standard deviation on the 95% CL upper limit is also provided.

Distributions of the b-tagging efficiency as a function of the mistag rate of charm jets for pp collisions in a PYTHIA simulation.

Distributions of the b-tagging efficiency as a function of the mistag rate of light jets for pPb collisions in a PYTHIA+HIJING simulation.

Distributions of the b-tagging efficiency as a function of the mistag rate of charm jets for pPb collisions in a PYTHIA+HIJING simulation.

Distributions of the Secondary Vertex Mass after applying the SSV tagger selection.

b-jet cross-sections in pPb, scaled by the Glauber nuclear overlap function, as well as a b-jet cross-section from a PYTHIA simulation from -2.5 < eta_CM < -1.5.

b-jet cross-sections in pPb, scaled by the Glauber nuclear overlap function, as well as a b-jet cross-section from a PYTHIA simulation from -1.5 < eta_CM < -0.5 (x 10^2).

b-jet cross-sections in pPb, scaled by the Glauber nuclear overlap function, as well as a b-jet cross-section from a PYTHIA simulation from -0.5 < eta_CM < 0.5 (x10^4).

b-jet cross-sections in pPb, scaled by the Glauber nuclear overlap function, as well as a b-jet cross-section from a PYTHIA simulation from 0.5 < eta_CM < 1.5 (x10^6).

b-jet RpA (PYTHIA) from 0.5 < eta_CM < 1.5.

b-jet RpA (PYTHIA) from -0.5 < eta_CM < 0.5.

b-jet RpA (PYTHIA) from -1.5 < eta_CM < -0.5.

b-jet RpA (PYTHIA) from -2.5 < eta_CM < -1.5.

b-jet Fraction.

b-jet RpA(PYTHIA).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Measured jet multiplicity distribution in the $W\mu\nu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured dilepton invariant mass distribution in the $Z\mu\mu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. P P --> Z0 JET(S) X.

Measured $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in the $Z\mu\mu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. P P --> Z0 JET(S) X.

Measured leading jet $p_{T}$ distribution in the $Z\mu\mu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. P P --> Z0 JET(S) X.

Measured jet multiplicity distribution in the $Z\mu\mu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. P P --> Z0 JET(S) X.

Measured transverse mass distribution in the $We\nu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in the $We\nu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured leading jet $p_{T}$ distribution in the $We\nu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured jet multiplicity distribution in the $We\nu$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured dilepton invariant mass distribution in the $Zee$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution in the $Zee$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured leading jet $p_{T}$ distribution in the $Zee$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured jet multiplicity distribution in the $Zee$+jets control region for the inclusive SR1 selection, compared to the background expectations. The latter include the global normalization factors extracted from the data. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows.

Measured distribution of the jet multiplicity for the SR1 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of $E_{T}^{miss}$ for the SR1 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of leading jet $p_{T}$ for the SR1 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the leading jet $p_{T}$ to $E_{T}^{miss}$ ratio for the SR1 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the jet multiplicity for SR7 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the jet multiplicity for SR7 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the leading jet $p_T$ for SR7 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the leading jet $p_T$ for SR9 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the leading jet $p_T$ to $E_{T}^{miss}$ ratio for SR7 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Measured distribution of the leading jet $p_T$ to $E_{T}^{miss}$ ratio for SR9 selection compared to the SM expectations. The $Z\nu\nu$+jets contribution is shown as constrained by the $W\mu\nu$+jets control sample. Where appropriate, the last bin of the distribution includes overflows. The distribution of different ADD, WIMP and GMSB scenarios are included.

Observed and expected 95$\%$ CL limit on the fundamental Planck scale in $4+n$ dimensions, $M_D$, as a function of the number of extra dimensions. In the figure the two results overlap. The shaded areas around the expected limit indicate the expected $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ ranges of limits in the absence of a signal. The 95$\%$ CL observed limits after the suppression of the events with $\hat{s} > M_D^2$ is applied (truncated) are also given.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the scalar operator D1. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the vector operator D5. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the axial vector operator D8. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the tensor operator D9. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the gluon operator D11. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the gluon operator C5. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Observed 95% CL limits on the suppression scale M* as a function of the mediator mass Mmed, assuming a Z'-like boson in a simplified model and a DM mass of 50 GeV and 400 GeV. The width of the mediator is varied between Mmed/3 and Mmed/8pi.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on the product of couplings of the simplified model vertex in the plane of mediator and WIMP mass (Mmed versus m_chi).

Upper limits at 90% C.L. on the WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section as a function of m_chi for spin-independent interactions, for a coupling strength of unity or the maximum value that keeps the model within its perturbative regime. The truncation procedure is applied for both cases.

Upper limits at 90% C.L. on the WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section as a function of m_chi for spin-dependent interactions, for a coupling strength of unity or the maximum value that keeps the model within its perturbative regime. The truncation procedure is applied for both cases.

Upper limits at 90% C.L. on the WIMP-nucleon annihilation cross section as a function of m_chi, for a coupling strength of unity or the maximum value that keeps the model within its perturbative regime. The truncation procedure is applied for both cases.

95$\%$ CL lower limits on the gravitino mass $m_{\tilde{G}}$ as a function of the squark mass $m_{\tilde{q}}$ for degenerate squark/gluino masses.

95$\%$ CL lower limits on the gravitino mass $m_{\tilde{G}}$ as a function of the squark mass $m_{\tilde{q}}$ for non-degenerate squark/gluino masses: $ m_{\tilde{g}} = 1/2 \times m_{\tilde{q}}$.

95$\%$ CL lower limits on the gravitino mass $m_{\tilde{G}}$ as a function of the squark mass $m_{\tilde{q}}$ for non-degenerate squark/gluino masses: $ m_{\tilde{g}} = 1/4 \times m_{\tilde{q}}$.

95$\%$ CL lower limits on the gravitino mass $m_{\tilde{G}}$ as a function of the squark mass $m_{\tilde{q}}$ for non-degenerate squark/gluino masses: $ m_{\tilde{g}} = 2 \times m_{\tilde{q}}$.

95$\%$ CL lower limits on the gravitino mass $m_{\tilde{G}}$ as a function of the squark mass $m_{\tilde{q}}$ for non-degenerate squark/gluino masses: $ m_{\tilde{g}} = 4 \times m_{\tilde{q}}$.

Observed and expected 95$\%$ CL upper limit on $\sigma \times {\rm{BR}}(H \to {\rm{invisible}})$ as a function of the Higgs boson mass.

Limits at 95% C.L. on the EFT suppression scale M* as a function of the WIMP mass m_chi, for the scalar operator C1. Results where EFT truncation is applied are also shown for couplings of 1 and the perturbative limit.

Observed and expected 95% CL exclusions on the mass of various resonances. Systematic uncertainties are taken into account. For excited b quark the expected mass limit is below the range of this analysis. For the Axigluon/coloron and color-octet scalar only observed mass limits are computed.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma B A$ as a function of resonance mass for several values of the width-to-mass ratio $\Gamma$ / M, computed for qq $\to$ G $\to$ qq.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma B A$ as a function of resonance mass for several values of the width-to-mass ratio $\Gamma$ / M, computed for gg $\to$ G $\to$ gg.

Observed 95% CL upper limits on $\sigma B A$ for QBHs from the inclusive analysis. These limits are valid for the number of extra dimensions n considered in this paper, ranging from 1 to 6.

Observed 95% CL lower limits on ${M_{QBH}}^{min}$ for different numbers of extra dimensions n and several values of M$_{D}$.

Correction factors defined as the ratio of the full cross section obtained from Eqs. (5)-(7) to the cross section from the narrow-width approximation calculations, as a function of the resonance mass, for qq resonances and for eight different resonance widths in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$=8 TeV.

Correction factors defined as the ratio of the full cross section obtained from Eqs. (5)-(7) to the cross section from the narrow-width approximation calculations, as a function of the resonance mass, for gg resonances and for eight different resonance widths in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$=8 TeV.