Profile likelihood test statistic $-2\Delta log L$ scan in data as a function of the Higgs and Z bosons signal strengths $(\mu_{H}, \mu_{Z})$.

68% CL contour as a function of the Higgs and Z bosons signal strengths $(\mu_{H}, \mu_{Z})$.

95\% CL contour as a function of the Higgs and Z bosons signal strengths $(\mu_{H}, \mu_{Z})$.

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid.

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.

Expected 95% CL limit for the pMSSM grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

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

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid.

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.

Expected 95% CL limit for the 2Step grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid.

Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid when the signal cross section is increased by one standard deviation.

Observed 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid when the signal cross section is decreased by one standard deviation.

Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid.

Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.

Expected 95% CL limit for the gtt off-shell grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.

Observed 95% CL limit for the RPV grid.

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

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

Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid.

Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid with an up variation of the uncertainties.

Expected 95% CL limit for the RPV grid with a down variation of the uncertainties.

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-7j80-2b 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-8j80-1b 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-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-9j80-2b 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-8j50-1b 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-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-9j50-2b 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-10j50-1b 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-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-11j50-2b 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-8j50-1b. 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-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-9j50-2b. 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-10j50-1b. 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-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-11j50-2b. 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-7j80-1b. 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-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-8j80-2b. 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-9j80-1b. 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-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-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-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.

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 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 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 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).

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the 2Step grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the pMSSM grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the RPV grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.

The best-expected signal region and the corresponding best-observed and best-expected CLs values for the gtt off-shell grid.

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 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-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-8j50-1b 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-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-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-9j50-2b 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-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-10j50-1b 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-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-11j50-2b 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-7j80-1b 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-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-8j80-2b 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-9j80-1b for the 2Step grid: fractional acceptance; fractional efficiency.

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

Upper 95% CL limits on the Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two electrons as a function of Z' pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two muons as a function of Z' pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons as a function of Z' pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the dielectron channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Expected limits in the dielectron channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the dielectron channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Observed limits in the dielectron channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the dimuon channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Expected limits in the dimuon channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the dimuon channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Observed limits in the dimuon channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the combined dilepton channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Expected limits in the dilepton channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.

Upper 95% CL limits on the acceptance times Z' production cross-section times branching ratio to two leptons in the dilepton channel as a function of Z' pole mass. Observed limits in the dilepton channel for different widths with an applied mass window of two times the true width of the signal around the pole mass.

Event yields for the different processes estimated with the fit to the $O_\mathrm{NN}$ distribution compared to the numbers of observed events. Only the statistical uncertainties are quoted. The $Z,VV+\mathrm{jets}$ contributions and the multijet background are fixed in the fit; therefore no uncertainty is quoted for these processes.

Detailed list of the contribution from each source of uncertainty to the total uncertainty in the measured values of $\sigma_{\mathrm{fid}}(tq)$ and $\sigma_{\mathrm{fid}}(\bar tq)$. The estimation of the systematic uncertainties has a statistical uncertainty of $0.3\%$. Uncertainties contributing less than $0.5\%$ are marked with ‘<0.5’.

Significant contributions to the total relative uncertainty in the measured value of $R_{t}$. The estimation of the systematic uncertainties has a statistical uncertainty of $0.3~\%$. Uncertainties contributing less than $0.5~\%$ are not shown.

Slopes $a$ of the mass dependence of the measured cross$-$sections.

Predicted (post-fit) and observed event yields for the signal region (SR), after the requirement on the neural network discriminant, $O_{\mathrm{NN}}~>~0.8$. The multijet background prediction is obtained from the fit to the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ distribution described in Section 6, while all the other predictions and uncertainties are derived from the total cross$-$section measurement. In some cases there is no uncertainty quoted. In these cases the uncertainty is < 0.5.

Predicted (post-fit) and observed event yields for the signal region (SR), after the requirement on the second neural network discriminant, $O_{\mathrm{NN2}}~>~0.8$. The multijet background prediction is obtained from the fit to the $E_{\mathrm{T}}^{\mathrm{miss}}$ distribution described in Section 6, while all the other predictions and uncertainties are derived from the total cross$-$section measurement. In some cases there is no uncertainty quoted. In these cases the uncertainty is < 0.5.

Migration matrix for $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ at the particle level. The pseudo top quark is shown on the $y$-axis and the reconstructed variable is shown on the $x$-axis.

Migration matrix for $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ at the parton level. The parton-level quark is shown on the $y$-axis and the reconstructed variable is shown on the $x$-axis.

Migration matrix for $|y(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ at the particle level. The pseudo top quark is shown on the $y$-axis and the reconstructed variable is shown on the $x$-axis.

Migration matrix for $|y(t)|$ at the parton level. The parton-level quark is shown on the $y$-axis and the reconstructed variable is shown on the $x$-axis.

Uncertainties in the normalisations of the different backgrounds for all processes, as derived from the total cross-section measurement.

Absolute and normalised unfolded differential $tq$ production cross$-$section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ at particle level.

Absolute and normalised unfolded differential $\bar tq$ production cross$-$section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ at particle level.

Absolute and normalised unfolded differential $tq$ production cross$-$section as a function of $|y(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ at particle level.

Absolute and normalised unfolded differential $\bar tq$ production cross$-$section as a function of $|y(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ at particle level.

Absolute and normalised unfolded differential $tq$ production cross$-$section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ at particle level.

Absolute and normalised unfolded differential $\bar tq$ production cross$-$section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ at particle level.

Absolute and normalised unfolded differential $tq$ production cross$-$section as a function of $|y(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ at particle level.

Absolute and normalised unfolded differential $\bar tq$ production cross$-$section as a function of $|y(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ at particle level.

Absolute and normalised unfolded differential $tq$ production cross$-$section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ at parton level.

Absolute and normalised unfolded differential $\bar tq$ production cross$-$section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ at parton level.

Absolute and normalised unfolded differential $tq$ production cross$-$section as a function of $|y(t)|$ at parton level.

Absolute and normalised unfolded differential $\bar tq$ production cross$-$section as a function of $|y(t)|$ at parton level.

Statistical correlation matrix for the absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ for $tq$ events(at the particle level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ for $ \bar tq$ events (at the particle level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the normalised differential cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ for $tq$ events (at the particle level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the normalised differential cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ for $\bar tq$ events (at the particle level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ for $tq$ events (at the particle level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ for $ \bar tq$ events (at the particle level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the normalised differential cross-section as a function of $|y(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ for $tq$ events (at the particle level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the normalised differential cross-section as a function of $|y(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ for $\bar tq$ events (at the particle level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ for $tq$ events (at the particle level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ for $\bar tq$ events (at the particle level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the normalised differential cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ for $tq$ events (at the particle level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the normalised differential cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ for $\bar tq$ events (at the particle level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ for $tq$ events (at the particle level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ for $\bar tq$ events (at the particle level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the normalised differential cross-section as a function of $|y(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ for $tq$ events (at the particle level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the normalised differential cross-section as a function of $|y(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ for $\bar tq$ events (at the particle level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ for $tq$ events (at the parton level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the absolute differential cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ for $ \bar tq$ events (at the parton level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the normalised differential cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ for $tq$ events (at the parton level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the normalised differential cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ for $ \bar tq$ events (at the parton level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y(t)|$ for $tq$ events (at the parton level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the absolute differential cross-section as a function of $|y(t)|$ for $\bar tq$ events (at the parton level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the normalised differential cross-section as a function of $|y(t)|$ for $tq$ events (at the parton level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Statistical correlation matrix for the normalised differential cross-section as a function of $|y(t)|$ for $\bar tq$ events (at the parton level). It includes the statistical uncertainty due to the number of data events and MC statistics.

Fiducial acceptance $A_{\mathrm{fid}}$ for different $t$-channel single top-quark MC samples. $^{\mathrm{(a)}}$ Calculation taken from AcerMC $+$ $\mathrm{P{\scriptsize YTHIA}6}$. $^{\mathrm{(b)}}$ Calculation taken from $\mathrm{P{\scriptsize OWHEG}}$-$\mathrm{B{\scriptsize OX}}$ $+$ $\mathrm{P{\scriptsize YTHIA}6}$.

Fiducial acceptance $A_{\mathrm{fid}}$ for different $t$-channel single top-antiquark MC samples. $^{\mathrm{(a)}}$ Calculation taken from AcerMC $+$ $\mathrm{P{\scriptsize YTHIA}6}$. $^{\mathrm{(b)}}$ Calculation taken from $\mathrm{P{\scriptsize OWHEG}}$-$\mathrm{B{\scriptsize OX}}$ $+$ $\mathrm{P{\scriptsize YTHIA}6}$.

Uncertainties for the absolute differential $tq$ cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ at particle level per bin ([0,35,50,75,100,150,200,300] GeV) in percent of $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(tq)}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

Uncertainties for the normalised differential $tq$ cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ at particle level per bin ([0,35,50,75,100,150,200,300] GeV) in percent of $\left( \dfrac{1}{\sigma}\right)\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(tq)}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

Uncertainties for the absolute differential $\bar tq$ cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ at particle level per bin ([0,35,50,75,100,150,300] GeV) in percent of $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(\bar tq)}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})}$.

Uncertainties for the normalised differential $\bar tq$ cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ at particle level per bin ([0,35,50,75,100,150,300] GeV) in percent of $\left( \dfrac{1}{\sigma}\right)\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(\bar tq)}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})}$.

Uncertainties for the absolute differential $tq$ cross-section as a function of $|y(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ at particle level per bin ([0,0.15,0.3,0.45,0.7,1.0,1.3,2.2]) in percent of $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(tq)}{\mathrm{d}|y(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})|}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

Uncertainties for the normalised differential $tq$ cross-section as a function of $|y(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ at particle level per bin ([0,0.15,0.3,0.45,0.7,1.0,1.3,2.2]) in percent of $\left(\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\right)\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(tq)}{\mathrm{d}|y(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})|}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

Uncertainties for the absolute differential $\bar tq$ cross-section as a function of $|y(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ at particle level per bin ([0,0.15,0.3,0.45,0.7,1.0,1.3,2.2]) in percent of $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(\bar tq)}{\mathrm{d}|y(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})|}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

Uncertainties for the normalised differential $\bar tq$ cross-section as a function of $|y(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ at particle level per bin ([0,0.15,0.3,0.45,0.7,1.0,1.3,2.2]) in percent of $\left(\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\right)\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(\bar tq)}{\mathrm{d}|y(\hat{t\hspace{-0.2mm}})|}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

Uncertainties for the absolute differential $tq$ cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ at particle level per bin ([30,45,60,75,100,150,300] GeV) in percent of $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(tq)}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

Uncertainties for the normalised differential $tq$ cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ at particle level per bin ([30,45,60,75,100,150,300] GeV) in percent of $\left(\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\right)\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(tq)}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

Uncertainties for the absolute differential $\bar tq$ cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ at particle level per bin ([30,45,60,75,100,150,300] GeV) in percent of $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(\bar tq)}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

Uncertainties for the normalised differential $\bar tq$ cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})$ at particle level per bin ([30,45,60,75,100,150,300] GeV) in percent of $\left(\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\right)\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(\bar tq)}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

Uncertainties for the absolute differential $tq$ cross-section as a function of $|y(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ at particle level per bin ([0.0, 1.2, 1.7, 2.2, 2.7, 3.3, 4.5]) in percent of $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(tq)}{\mathrm{d}|y(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})|}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

Uncertainties for the normalised differential $tq$ cross-section as a function of $|y(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ at particle level per bin ([0.0, 1.2, 1.7, 2.2, 2.7, 3.3, 4.5]) in percent of $\left(\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\right)\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(tq)}{\mathrm{d}|y(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})|}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

Uncertainties for the absolute differential $\bar tq$ cross-section as a function of $|y(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ at particle level per bin ([0.0, 1.2, 1.7, 2.2, 2.7, 3.3, 4.5]) in percent of $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(\bar tq)}{\mathrm{d}|y(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})|}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

Uncertainties for the normalised differential $\bar tq$ cross-section as a function of $|y(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})|$ at particle level per bin ([0.0, 1.2, 1.7, 2.2, 2.7, 3.3, 4.5]) in percent of $\left(\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\right)\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(\bar tq)}{\mathrm{d}|y(\hat{j\hspace{-0.2mm}})|}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

Uncertainties for the absolute differential $tq$ cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ at parton level per bin ([0,50,100,150,200,300] GeV) in percent of $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(tq)}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)}$.

Uncertainties for the normalised differential $tq$ cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ at parton level per bin ([0,50,100,150,200,300] GeV) in percent of $\left(\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\right)\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(tq)}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

Uncertainties for the absolute differential $\bar tq $ cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ at parton level per bin ([0,50,100,150,300] GeV) in percent of $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(\bar tq)}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)}$.

Uncertainties for the normalised differential $\bar tq $ cross-section as a function of $p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)$ at parton level per bin ([0,50,100,150,300] GeV) in percent of $\left(\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\right)\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(\bar tq)}{\mathrm{d}p_{\mathrm{T}}(t)}$.

Uncertainties for the absolute differential $ tq $ cross-section as a function of $|y(t)|$ at parton level per bin ([0,0.3,0.7,1.3,2.2]) in percent of $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(tq)}{\mathrm{d}|y(t)|}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

Uncertainties for the normalised differential $ tq $ cross-section as a function of $|y(t)|$ at parton level per bin ([0,0.3,0.7,1.3,2.2]) in percent of $\left(\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\right)\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(tq)}{\mathrm{d}|y(t)|}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

Uncertainties for the absolute differential $ \bar tq $ cross-section as a function of $|y(t)|$ at parton level per bin ([0,0.3,0.7,1.3,2.2]) in percent of $\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(\bar tq)}{\mathrm{d}|y(t)|}$.

Uncertainties for the normalised differential $ \bar tq $ cross-section as a function of $|y(t)|$ at parton level per bin ([0,0.3,0.7,1.3,2.2]) in percent of $\left(\dfrac{1}{\sigma}\right)\dfrac{\mathrm{d}\sigma(\bar tq)}{\mathrm{d}|y(t)|}$. If the uncertainty reported in the paper is "0.0" for both the $\textit{plus}$ and $\textit{minus}$ variation, the value "+0.01" is assigned to the $\textit{plus}$ variation for technical reasons.

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.

Kinematic distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 2-tau channel, for mTsum in the Compressed SR selection without the mTsum>1400 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Cited uncertainties are statistical uncertainties only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "MM" refers to a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV. The GMSB benchmark model corresponds to Lambda = 90 TeV and tanbeta = 40.

Kinematic distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 2-tau channel, for mTtau1+mTtau2 in the High-Mass SR selection without the mTtau1+mTtau2>350GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Cited uncertainties are statistical uncertainties only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "MM" refers to a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV. The GMSB benchmark model corresponds to Lambda = 90 TeV and tanbeta = 40.

Kinematic distributions for "extended SR selections" of the 2-tau channel, for HT in the GMSB SR selection without the HT > 1700 GeV requirement. The last bin includes overflow events. Cited uncertainties are statistical uncertainties only. Signal predictions are overlaid for several benchmark models, normalised to their predicted cross sections. For the simplified model, "MM" refers to a medium mass splitting, with m(gluino)=1145 GeV and m(neutralino)=265 GeV; "HM" denotes a high mass splitting scenario, with m(gluino)=1305 GeV and m(neutralino)=105 GeV. The GMSB benchmark model corresponds to Lambda = 90 TeV and tanbeta = 40.

Expected exclusion contour at the 95% confidence level for the simplified model of gluino pair production, based on the combined results from the 1tau and 2tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data.

Observed exclusion contour at the 95% confidence level for the simplified model of gluino pair production, based on the combined results from the 1tau and 2tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data.

Expected exclusion contour at the 95% confidence level for the simplified model of gluino pair production, based on results from the 2tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data.

Expected exclusion contour at the 95% confidence level for the simplified model of gluino pair production, based on results from the 1tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data.

Observed exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the gauge-mediated supersymmetry-breaking model, based on results from the 2 tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data. Additional model parameters are M(mess) = 250 TeV, N5 = 3, mu>0 and Cgrav =1.

Expected exclusion contours at the 95% confidence level for the gauge-mediated supersymmetry-breaking model, based on results from the 2 tau channel. The result is obtained using 3.2 fb-1 of sqrt(s) = 13 TeV ATLAS data. Additional model parameters are M(mess) = 250 TeV, N5 = 3, mu>0 and Cgrav =1.

Observed upper cross section limits in pb for the simplified model of gluino pair production for the combination of all SRs.

Best expected signal region for the simplified model of gluino pair production. The respective SR has been used in the combination of the results.

Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the Compressed 1tau signal region.

Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the Compressed 1tau signal region.

Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the Compressed 1tau signal region.

Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the medium mass 1tau signal region.

Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the medium mass 1tau signal region.

Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the medium mass 1tau signal region.

Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 1tau signal region.

Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 1tau signal region.

Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 1tau signal region.

Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the compressed 2tau signal region.

Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the compressed 2tau signal region.

Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the compressed 2tau signal region.

Acceptance for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 2tau signal region.

Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 2tau signal region.

Acceptance times Efficiency for the gluino production simplified model grid in the high mass 2tau signal region.

Acceptance for the GMSB model grid in the 2tau signal region.

Efficiency for the GMSB model grid in the 2tau signal region.

Acceptance times Efficiency for the GMSB model grid in the 2tau signal region.

Data (bold boxes) and background estimates (colour fill) for m_beta vs. m_betagamma for the gluino R-hadron search (1000 GeV). The blue thin-line boxes illustrate the expected signal (on top of background) for the given R-hadron mass hypothesis. The black dashed vertical/horizontal lines at 500 GeV show the mass selection (signal region in the top-right). Two events pass this selection.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section as a function of mass for the production of long-lived gluino R-hadrons. The theory prediction along with its +-1sigma uncertainty is show as a black line and a blue band, respectively. The observed 8 TeV Run-1 limit and theory prediction [arXiv:1411.6795] are shown in dash-dotted and dotted lines, respectively.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section as a function of mass for the production of bottom-squark R-hadrons. The theory prediction along with its +-1sigma uncertainty is show as a black line and a blue band, respectively. The observed 8 TeV Run-1 limit and theory prediction [arXiv:1411.6795] are shown in dash-dotted and dotted lines, respectively.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% CL upper limits on the cross section as a function of mass for the production of top-squark R-hadrons. The theory prediction along with its +-1sigma uncertainty is show as a black line and a blue band, respectively. The observed 8 TeV Run-1 limit and theory prediction [arXiv:1411.6795] are shown in dash-dotted and dotted lines, respectively.

Final selection requirements as a function of the simulated R-hadron mass.

Summary of all studied systematic uncertainties. Ranges indicate a dependency on the R-hadron mass hypothesis (from low to high masses).

Expected signal yield (Nsig) and efficiency (eff.), estimated background (Nbkg) and observed number of events in data (Nobs) for the full mass range after the final selection using 3.2/fb of data. The stated uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic contribution.

Distribution of the truth-level beta for gluino R-hadrons in exemplary signal MC samples and muons in a Zmumu MC sample. All distributions have been normalised to one. The last bin contains the overflow of the histograms. The distributions illustrate the good discriminating power of the variables.

Distribution of the truth-level betagamma for gluino R-hadrons in exemplary signal MC samples and muons in a Zmumu MC sample. All distributions have been normalised to one. The last bin contains the overflow of the histograms. The distributions illustrate the good discriminating power of the variables.

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% confidence level upper limits on the cross section as a function of mass for the production of long-lived gluino R-hadrons. The theory prediction along with its +-1sigma uncertainty is show as a black line and a blue band, respectively. For meta-stable gluinos with a lifetime of 50 ns. (mass exclusion: about 1660 GeV expected, 1520 GeV observed).

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% confidence level upper limits on the cross section as a function of mass for the production of long-lived gluino R-hadrons. The theory prediction along with its +-1sigma uncertainty is show as a black line and a blue band, respectively. For meta-stable gluinos with a lifetime of 30 ns. (mass exclusion: about 1660 GeV expected, 1520 GeV observed).

Expected (dashed black line) and observed (solid red line) 95% confidence level upper limits on the cross section as a function of mass for the production of long-lived gluino R-hadrons. The theory prediction along with its +-1sigma uncertainty is show as a black line and a blue band, respectively. For meta-stable gluinos with a lifetime of 10 ns. (mass exclusion: about 1660 GeV expected, 1520 GeV observed).

Object-quality selection cut-flow with observed data and exemplary expected events (scaled to 3.2/fb for MC) in the gluino R-hadron search.

Object-quality selection cut-flow with observed data and exemplary expected events (scaled to 3.2/fb for MC) in the squark R-hadron search.

Expected signal yield (Nsig) and efficiency (eff.), estimated background (Nbkg) and observed number of events in data (Nobs) for the full mass range in the meta-stable gluino R-hadron search using 3.2/fb of data. The stated uncertainties include both the statistical and systematic contribution.

Median expected and observed 95% CL upper limits on the cross-section times branching ratio (sigma*B) for W'_SSM production for the exclusive muon and electron channels, and for both channels combined.