Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ distribution with the TZCR1 event selection except for the requirement on $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$. The variables $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$ are constructed in the same way as $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{T}$ but treating the leading photon transverse momentum as invisible. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.

Comparison of data with estimated backgrounds in the $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$ distribution with the TZCR1 event selection except for the requirement on $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$. The variables $\tilde{E}_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $\tilde{m}_\text{T}$ are constructed in the same way as $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ and $m_\text{T}$ but treating the leading photon transverse momentum as invisible. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.

Comparison of the observed data ($n_\text{obs}$) with the predicted background ($n_\text{exp}$) in the validation and signal regions. The background predictions are obtained using the background-only fit configuration. The bottom panel shows the significance of the difference between data and predicted background, where the significance is based on the total uncertainty ($\sigma_\text{tot}$).

Jet multiplicity distributions for events where exactly two signal leptons are selected. No correction factors are included in the background normalizations. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.

Jet multiplicity distributions for events where exactly one lepton plus one $\tau$ candidate are selected. No correction factors are included in the background normalizations. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin includes overflow.

The $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ distribution in SR1. In the plot, the full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement on $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow. Benchmark signal models are overlaid for comparison. The benchmark models are specified by the gluino and stop masses, given in TeV in the table.

The $m_\text{T}$ distribution in SR1. In the plot, the full event selection in the corresponding signal region is applied, except for the requirement on $m_\text{T}$. The predicted backgrounds are scaled with normalization factors. The uncertainty band includes statistical and all experimental systematic uncertainties. The last bin contains the overflow. Benchmark signal models are overlaid for comparison. The benchmark models are specified by the gluino and stop masses, given in TeV in the table.

Expected (black dashed) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ versus $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ for gluino-mediated stop production.

Observed (red solid) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{g}}$ versus $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ for gluino-mediated stop production.

Expected (black dashed) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ versus $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ for direct stop production.

Observed (red solid) 95% excluded regions in the plane of $m_{\tilde{t}_1}$ versus $m_{\tilde{\chi}_1^0}$ for direct stop production.

The expected upper limits on $T$ quark pair production times the squared branching ratio for $T \rightarrow tZ$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass.

The observed upper limits on $T$ quark pair production times the squared branching ratio for $T \rightarrow tZ$ as a function of the $T$ quark mass.

The expected limits on $T$ quarks as a function of the branching ratios $B\left(T \rightarrow bW\right)$ and $B\left(T \rightarrow tH\right)$ for a $T$ quark with a mass of 800 GeV. The $T$ is assumed to decay in three possible ways: $T \to tZ$, $T \to tH$, and $T \to bW$.

The observed limits on $T$ quarks as a function of the branching ratios $B\left(T \rightarrow bW\right)$ and $B\left(T \rightarrow tH\right)$ for a $T$ quark with a mass of 800 GeV. The $T$ is assumed to decay in three possible ways: $T \to tZ$, $T \to tH$, and $T \to bW$.

The $m_\text{T}$ distribution in the WVR2-tail validation region which has the same preselection and jet $p_\text{T}$ requirements as SR2.

The $am_\text{T2}$ distribution in the WVR2-tail validation region which has the same preselection and jet $p_\text{T}$ requirements as SR2.

Large-radius jet mass ($R=1.2$), decomposed into the number of small-radius jet constituents. The lower panel shows the ratio of the total data to the total prediction (summed over all jet multiplicities). Events are required to have one lepton, four jets with $p_\text{T}>80,50,40,40$ GeV, at least one $b$-tagged jet, $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}>200$ GeV, and $m_\text{T}>30$ GeV.

Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^\tau$ in data for a selection enriched in $t\bar{t}$ events with one hadronically decaying $\tau$. Events that have no hadronic $\tau$ candidate (that passes the Loose identification criteria, as well as other requirements) are not shown in the plot.

Upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for the gluino-mediated stop models.

Upper limits on the model cross-section in units of pb for the models with direct stop pair production.

Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for the gluino-mediated stop models. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Illustration of the best expected signal region per signal grid point for models with direct stop pair production. This mapping is used for the final combined exclusion limits.

Expected $CL_s$ values for the gluino-mediated stop models.

Observed $CL_s$ values for the gluino-mediated stop models.

Expected $CL_s$ values for the direct stop pair production models.

Observed $CL_s$ values for the direct stop pair production models.

Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR2 for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Expected limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production and an unpolarized stop (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1=\tilde{t}_L$ (and bino LSP).

Observed limit using SR1+SR2 (best expected) for models with direct stop pair production with $\tilde{t}_1\sim\tilde{t}_R$ (and bino LSP).

Acceptance for SR1 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR1 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR2 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR2 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR3 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Acceptance for SR3 in the direct stop pair production. The acceptance is defined as the fraction of signal events that pass the analysis selection performed on generator-level objects, therefore emulating an ideal detector with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects.

Efficiency for SR1 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR1 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR2 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR2 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR3 in the gluino-mediated stop models. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Efficiency for SR3 in the direct stop pair production. The efficiency is the ratio between the expected signal rate calculated with simulated data passing all the reconstruction level cuts applied to reconstructed objects, and the signal rate for an ideal detector (with perfect particle identification and no measurement resolution effects).

Missing transverse momentum distribution after SR3b selection, beside the $E_\mathrm{T}^\mathrm{miss}$ requirement. The results in the signal region correspond to the last inclusive bin. The systematic uncertainties include theory uncertainties for the backgrounds with prompt SS/3L and the full systematic uncertainties for data-driven backgrounds. For illustration the distribution for a benchmark SUSY scenario ($pp\to \tilde g\tilde g$, $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$, $m_{\tilde g}=1.2$ TeV, $m_{\tilde\chi_1^0}=0.7$ TeV) is also shown.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qq(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to qqWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde b_1$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde b_1\to t\tilde\chi_1^-$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Observed exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Expected exclusion limits on the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

Upper limits on signal cross-sections as function of the $\tilde g$ and $\tilde\chi_1^0$ masses in the context of SUSY scenarios with simplified mass spectra featuring $\tilde g\tilde g$ pair production with exclusive $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decays, obtained using the signal efficiency and acceptance specific to each model. All limits are computed at 95% CL.

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar q(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR0b3j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar q(\tilde\ell\ell/\tilde\nu\nu)$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR0b3j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar qWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR0b5j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to q\bar qWZ\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR0b5j. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ production and $\tilde b_1\to tW\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR1b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde b_1\tilde b_1^*$ production and $\tilde b_1\to tW\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR1b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: signal acceptance (in %) in the signal region SR3b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

SUSY scenario with $\tilde g\tilde g$ production and $\tilde g\to t\bar t\tilde\chi_1^0$ decay: reconstruction efficiency (in %) in the signal region SR3b. The benchmark scenarios used to set exclusion limits are materialized by black dot markers. Acceptance and efficiency are defined as in appendix A of [JHEP 06 (2014) 124, arXiv: 1403.4853v1 [hep-ex]].

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the High-pT jet SR for observed data events

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the High-pT jet SR for expected signal events in the strong gluino pair pair production model with m(gluino)=1.8 TeV, m(chi0)=0.2 TeV, tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the Trackless jet SR for observed data events

Two-dimensional distribution of the invariant mass $m_{DV}$ and the track multiplicity in the Trackless jet SR for expected signal events in the electroweak pair production model

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in electroweakino pair production models

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the electroweak pair production model.

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.4 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.0 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and m(gluino)=2.2 TeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=50 GeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the lifetime and mass of the gluino in strong gluino pair production models and m(chi0)=450 GeV

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.01 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=0.1 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=1 ns

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Expected (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Expected (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed (+1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Observed (-1 sigma) exclusion limits at 95% CL on the mass of the gluino and neutralino in strong gluino pair production models and tau(chi0)=10 ns

Exclusion limits at 95% CL on the production cross section in the strong gluino pair production models and m($ ilde{\chi}^0_1$)=1.25 TeV

Acceptance cutflow for the High-pT SR for representative points in the strong gluino pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks final state. See additional resources for more information.

Acceptance cutflow for the High-pT SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks final state. See additional resources for more information.

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R < 1150 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for HighPt SR selections, R > 3870 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R < 1150 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R [1150, 3870] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Event-level Efficiency for Trackless SR selections, R > 3870 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R < 22 mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [22, 25] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [25, 29] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [29, 38] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [38, 46] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [46, 73] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [73, 84] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [84, 111] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [111, 120] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [120, 145] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [145, 180] mm

Reinterpretation Material: Vertex-level Efficiency for R [180, 300] mm

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the High-pT SR for representative points in the strong gluino pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the Trackless SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks. See additional resources for more information.

Cutflow (acceptance x efficiency) for the High-pT SR for representative points in the electroweak pair production model with heavy-flavor quarks. See additional resources for more information.

Observed (points with error bars) and expected background (solid histograms) distributions for $E_{T}^{miss}$ in the signal region (a) SRL, (b) SRM and (c) SRH after the background-only fit applied to the CRs. The predicted signal distributions for the two models with a gluino mass of 2000 GeV and neutralino mass of 250 GeV (SRL), 1050 GeV (SRM) or 1950 GeV (SRH) are also shown for comparison. The uncertainties in the SM background are only statistical.

Observed and expected exclusion limit in the gluino-neutralino mass plane at 95% CL combined using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point, for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $139~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, for $\gamma/Z$ (a) and $\gamma/h$ (b) signal models. The black solid line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the 1$\sigma$ exclusions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves, the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties. For each point in the higgsino-bino parameter space, the labels indicate the best-expected signal region, where L, M and H mean SRL, SRM and SRH, respectively.

Observed and expected exclusion limit in the gluino-neutralino mass plane at 95% CL combined using the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point, for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of $139~\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$, for $\gamma/Z$ (a) and $\gamma/h$ (b) signal models. The black solid line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) bands indicating the 1$\sigma$ exclusions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves, the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties. For each point in the higgsino-bino parameter space, the labels indicate the best-expected signal region, where L, M and H mean SRL, SRM and SRH, respectively.

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/Z$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Acceptance (left) and efficiency (right) for the $\gamma/h$ model signal grid for SRL (top), SRM (middle) and SRH (bottom).

Cutflow for the SRL selection, for two relevant signal points for both $\gamma/Z$ and $\gamma/h$ models, where the gluinos have mass of 2000 GeV and the neutralinos have a mass of 250 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SRM selection, for two relevant signal points for both $\gamma/Z$ and $\gamma/h$ models, where the gluinos have mass of 2000 GeV and the neutralinos have a mass of 1050 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Cutflow for the SRH selection, for two relevant signal points for both $\gamma/Z$ and $\gamma/h$ models, where the gluinos have mass of 2000 GeV and the neutralinos have a mass of 1950 GeV (10000 generated events). The numbers are normalized to a luminosity of 139 $fb^{-1}$.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

Observed and expected exclusion limits in the gluino–neutralino mass plane at 95% CL for the full Run-2 dataset corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 139 fb−1 , for the (a) $\gamma/Z$ and (b) $\gamma/h$ signal models. They are obtained by combining limits from the signal region with the best expected sensitivity at each point. The dashed (black) line corresponds to the expected limits at 95% CL, with the light (yellow) band indicating the $\pm 1\sigma$ excursions due to experimental and background-theory uncertainties. The observed limits are indicated by medium (red) curves: the solid contour represents the nominal limit, and the dotted lines are obtained by varying the signal cross section by the theoretical scale and PDF uncertainties.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[100,105)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[105,110)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[110,115)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[115,120)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[120,125)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[125,130)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[130,140)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

The figure shows the signal acceptance (a) and efficiency (b) plots for the slepton pair production model, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in[140,\infty)$ region. Acceptance is calculated by applying the signal region requirements to particle-level objects, which do not suffer from identification inefficiencies or mismeasurements. The efficiency is calculated with fully reconstructed objects with the acceptance divided out. Large acceptance and efficiency differences in neighbouring points are due to statistical fluctuations.

Cutflow table for the slepton signal sample with $m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = (100,70)$ GeV, in the SR-0J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in [100,\infty)$ region. The yields include the process cross section and are weighted to the 139 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity. 246000 events were generated for the sample.

Cutflow table for the slepton signal sample with $m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0) = (100,70)$ GeV, in the SR-1J $m_{\mathrm{T2}}^{100} \in [100,\infty)$ region. The yields include the process cross section and are weighted to the 139 fb$^{-1}$ luminosity. 246000 events were generated for the sample.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models, with observed upper limits on signal cross-section (fb) overlaid, for slepton-pair production in the $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ plane. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected exclusion limits on SUSY simplified models for slepton-pair production in the (a) $m(\tilde{\ell})-m(\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ and (b) $m(\tilde{\ell})-\Delta m(\tilde{\ell},\tilde{\chi}_1^0)$ planes. Only $\tilde{e}$ and $\tilde{\mu}$ are considered. The observed (solid thick line) and expected (thin dashed line) exclusion contours are indicated. The shaded band around the dashed line corresponds to the $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations in the expected limit, including all uncertainties except theoretical uncertainties in the signal cross-section. The dotted lines around the observed limit illustrate the change in the observed limit as the nominal signal cross-section is scaled up and down by the theoretical uncertainty. All limits are computed at 95% CL. The observed limits obtained at LEP for $\tilde{\mu}_{\textup{R}}$ and by the ATLAS experiment in previous searches are also shown.

Observed and expected $E_T^{miss}$ distribution in soft dimuon signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected $m_{eff}^{incl}$ distribution in hard single-lepton 3-jet signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected $m_{eff}^{incl}$ distribution for hard single-lepton 5-jet signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected $E_{T}^{miss}$ distribution for hard single-lepton 6-jet signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected $M_{R}'$ distribution for hard same-flavour dilepton low-multiplicity signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected $M_{R}'$ distribution for hard same-flavour dilepton 3-jet signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected $M_{R}'$ distribution for hard opposite-flavour dilepton low-multiplicity signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed and expected $M_{R}'$ distribution for hard opposite-flavour dilepton 3-jet opposite-flavour signal region. The last bin includes the overflow.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the mSUGRA/CMSSM model with $\tan\beta=30$, $A_{0}=-2m_{0}$ and $\mu > 0$.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the mSUGRA/CMSSM model with $\tan\beta=30$, $A_{0}=-2m_{0}$ and $\mu > 0$.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the bRPV MSUGRA/CMSSM model.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the bRPV MSUGRA/CMSSM model.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the natural gauge mediation with a stau NLSP model (nGM).

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the natural gauge mediation with a stau NLSP model (nGM).

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the non-universal higgs masses with gaugino mediation model (NUHMG).

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the non-universal higgs masses with gaugino mediation model (NUHMG).

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the minimal UED model from the combination of the hard dilepton and soft dilepton analyses.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the minimal UED model from the combination of the hard dilepton and soft dilepton analyses.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the minimal UED model from the hard dilepton analysis.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the minimal UED model from the hard dilepton analysis.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the minimal UED model from the soft dilepton analysis.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the minimal UED model from the soft dilepton analysis.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the simplified model with gluino-mediated top squark production where the top squark is assumed to decay exclusively via $\tilde{t} \rightarrow c \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the simplified model with gluino-mediated top squark production, where the top squark is assumed to decay exclusively via $\tilde{t} \rightarrow c \tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the simplified model with gluino-mediated top squark production where the gluinos are assumed to decay exclusively through a virtual top squark, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow tt+\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the simplified model with gluino-mediated top squark production where the gluinos are assumed to decay exclusively through a virtual top squark, $\tilde{g} \rightarrow tt+\tilde{\chi}^{0}_{1}$.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the soft single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the soft single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the hard single-lepton analysis for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the hard single-lepton analysis for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the soft single-lepton analysis for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the soft single-lepton analysis for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the hard single-lepton analysis for the case in which x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the hard single-lepton analysis for the case in which x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the soft single-lepton analysis for the case in which x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the gluino simplified model from the soft single-lepton analysis for the case in which x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the combination of soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the soft single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the soft single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons from the combination of the hard dilepton and hard single-lepton analyses.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons from the combination of the hard dilepton and hard single-lepton analyses.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons from the hard single-lepton analysis.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons from the hard single-lepton analysis.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons from the hard dilepton analysis.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model with sleptons from the hard dilepton analysis.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons from the hard dilepton analysis.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons from the hard dilepton analysis.

Observed 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model without sleptons from the hard single-lepton analysis.

Expected 95% exclusion contour for the two-step gluino simplified model without sleptons from the hard single-lepton analysis.

Number of generated events in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Production cross-section in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Number of generated events in the the first- and second-generation squark simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV. squark decaying to quark neutralino1 with varying x.

Production cross-section in the the first- and second-generation squark simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Number of generated evens in the minimal UED model.

Production cross-section in the minimal UED model in pb.

Number of generated events in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Production cross-section in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Acceptance for soft single-lepton 3-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Efficiency for soft single-lepton 3-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Acceptance for soft single-lepton 5-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Efficiency for soft single-lepton 5-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Acceptance for soft single-lepton 3-jet inclusive signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Efficiency for the soft single-lepton 3-jet inclusive signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Expected CLs from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Expected CLs from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV. The chargino mass is parameterised using x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)).

Observed CLs from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Observed CLs from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV. The chargino mass is parameterised using x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)).

Acceptance for soft dimuon signal region in the minimal UED model (mUED).

Efficiency for soft dimuon signal region in minimal UED model (mUED).

Acceptance for hard dilepton 3-jet opposite-flavour signal region in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Efficiency for hard dilepton 3jet opposite-flavour signal region in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Acceptance for hard dilepton 3-jet same-flavour signal region in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Efficiency for hard dilepton 3-jet same-flavour signal region in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Acceptance for hard dilepton low-multiplicity opposite-flavour signal region in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Efficiency for hard dilepton low-multiplicity opposite-flavour signal region in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Acceptance for hard dilepton low-multiplicity same-flavour signal region in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Efficiency for hard dilepton low-multiplicity same-flavour signal region in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Best expected signal region in the minimal UED model (mUED).

Expected CLs from hard dilepton analysis in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Observed CLs from the hard dilepton analysis in the two-step first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons.

Expected CLs from the combination of the soft dimuon and hard dilepton analyses in the minimal UED model (mUED).

Observed CLs from the combination of the soft dimuon and hard dilepton analyses in the minimal UED model (mUED).

Acceptance for hard single-lepton 3-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Efficiency for hard single-lepton 3-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Acceptance for hard single-lepton 5-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Efficiency for hard single-lepton 5-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Acceptance for hard single-lepton 6-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Efficiency for hard single-lepton 6-jet signal region in the gluino simplified model for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Acceptance for hard single-lepton 3-jet signal region in the first- and second-generation squark simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Efficiency for hard single-lepton 3-jet signal region in the first- and second-generation squark simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Acceptance for hard single-lepton 5-jet signal region in the first- and second-generation squark simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Efficiency for hard single-lepton 5-jet signal region in the first- and second-generation squark simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Acceptance for hard single-lepton 6-jet signal region in the first- and second-generation squark simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Efficiency for hard single-lepton 6-jet signal region in the first- and second-generation squark simplified model for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Observed 95% upper limit on the visible cross-section in the gluino simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which the chargino mass is fixed at x = (m(gluino)-m(chargino))/(m(gluino)-m(LSP)) = 1/2.

Observed 95% upper limit on the visible cross-section in the first- and second-generation squark simplified model from the combination of the soft single-lepton and hard single-lepton analyses for the case in which x = (m(squark)-m(chargino))/(m(squark)-m(LSP)) is varied and the LSP mass is set at 60 GeV.

Observed 95% upper limit on the visible cross-section in the first- and second-generation squark simplified model with sleptons from the hard dilepton analysis.

Observed 95% upper limit on the visible cross-section in the minimal UED model (mUED) from the combination of the soft dimuon and hard dilepton analyses.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution in the b-tag category of the 2tau_h channel. Despite listing this as an exclusive final state (as there must be at least one b-jets), there is no explicit selection on the presence of additional light-flavour jets. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The combined prediction for A and H bosons with masses of 300, 500 and 800 GeV and $\tan\beta$ = 10 in the hMSSM scenario are also provided.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution for the b-inclusive selection in the 1l1tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. In the paper, the first bin is cut off at 60 GeV for aesthetics but contains underflows down to 50 GeV as in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The prediction for a SSM Zprime with masses of 1500, 2000 and 2500 GeV are also provided.

Observed and predicted mTtot distribution for the b-inclusive selection in the 2tau_h channel. Please note that the bin content is divided by the bin width in the paper figure, but not in the HepData table. The last bin includes overflows. The prediction for a SSM Zprime with masses of 1500, 2000 and 2500 GeV are also provided.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the b-associated Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the Drell Yan production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the Zprime boson mass.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass and the relative strength of the b-associated production.

Ratio of the 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section times branching fraction for alternate Zprime models with respect to the SSM, both observed and expected are shown.

Acceptance, acceptance times efficiency and b-tag category fraction for a scalar boson produced by gluon-gluon fusion as a function of the scalar boson mass.

Acceptance, acceptance times efficiency and b-tag category fraction for a scalar boson produced by b-associated production as a function of the scalar boson mass.

Acceptance and acceptance times efficiency for a heavy gauge boson produced by Drell Yan as a function of the gauge boson mass.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Two dimensional likelihood scan of the gluon-gluon fusion cross section times braching fraction, $\sigma(gg\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$, vs the b-associated production times branching fraction, $\sigma(bb\phi)\times B(\phi\to\tau\tau)$ for the Higgs boson mass ($m_\phi$) indicated in the table. For each mass, 10000 points are scanned. At each point $\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ is calculated, defined as the negative-log-likelihood (NLL) of the conditional fit with $\sigma(gg\phi)$ and $\sigma(bb\phi)$ fixed to their values at the point and with the minimum NLL value at any point subtracted. Vaules are provided for the fit to the observed data and to the expected data, which is the sum of Standard Model contributions not including the SM Higgs boson. The best-fit point and the preferred 68% and 95% boundaries are found at $2\Delta(\mathrm{NLL})$ values of 0.0, 2.30 and 5.90, respectively.

Observed and expected 95% CL upper limits on the gluon-gluon fusion Higgs boson production cross section times ditau branching fraction as a function of the boson mass.

Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $E_\text{T}^\text{miss}$ for SRA-TT after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T2}^{\chi^2}$ for SRA-T0 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRB-TW after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $R_\text{ISR}$ for SRC1-5 after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $m_\text{T}^{b,\text{max}}$ for SRD-high after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Distribution of $H_\text{T}$ for SRE after the likelihood fit. The stacked histograms show the SM expectation and the hatched uncertainty band around the SM expectation shows the MC statistical and detector-related systematic uncertainties. A representative signal point is shown for each distribution.

Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Expected (blue solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Observed (red solid line) exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of stop and LSP masses in the scenario where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses and branching fraction to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ in the Natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid scenario where $m_{\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}}=m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$+1 GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small tan$\beta$ assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a large tan$\beta$ assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $m_{\tilde{t}}$ and $m_{\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}}$ for the pMSSM-inspired non-asymptotic Higgsino simplified model for a small right-handed top-squark mass parameter assumption.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a negative value of $\mu$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for the Wino NLSP pMSSM model for a positive value of $\mu$.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the left-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL as a function of $\tilde{t}$ and $\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ masses for for the right-handed top-squark mass parameter scan in the well-tempered pMSSM model.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Expected exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Observed exclusion limits at 95% CL exclusion as a function of $\tilde{g}$ and $\tilde{t}$ masses in the scenario where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t}\to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).

Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).

Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).

Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).

Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).

Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).

Results of the exclusion fits for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ from the combination of SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD and SRE, based on the best expected $CL_s$. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate which of the signal regions gave the best expected $CL_s$ (with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 corresponding to SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low,SR D-high, SRE respectively).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 25%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 50%. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the grid with two stop decay channels: $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV. The results are shown as a function of the branching ratio to $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$: 0 (top left), 25% (top right), 50% (middle left), 75% middle right) and 100% (bottom). The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRC, SRD-low and SRD-high, The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high, 5: SRC).

Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for negative values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the wino NLSP grid for positive values of $\mu$. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{q3L}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the well-tempered neutralino grid for the $m_{tR}$ scenario. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 4: SRD-low, 5: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with large tan$\beta$ (top left) is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenarios with small tan$\beta$ are shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Results of the exclusion fits in the non-asymptotic higgsino grid with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}}) - m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 5$ GeV. A scenario with a mostly right-handed top squark partner is shown. The results are based on taking the signal region with the best expected $CL_s$, using SRA, SRB, SRD-low and SRD-high, where SRA and SRB are the statistical combinations of their respective regions. The numbers centered on the grid points indicate the signal region used (1: SRA, 2: SRB, 3: SRD-low, 4: SRD-high).

Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Acceptance for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-TT for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRE for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-TW for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRA-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRB-T0 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC1 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC2 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC3 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC4 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRC5 for top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$.

Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRD-low for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRD-high for the natural SUSY-inspired mixed grid in which two decay modes are considered, the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ and $\tilde{t}\to b \tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}} \to b W^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$, with $m(\tilde{\chi^{\pm}_{1}})-m(\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}) = 1$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Efficiencies for SRE for gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t},\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}})=5$ GeV.

Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.

Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.

Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.

Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.

Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.

Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.

Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{t}\to t^{(*)} \tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}$ grid.

Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.

Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.

Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.

Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.

Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.

Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.

Upper limit cross-section, in femtobarn, for the $\tilde{g}\to t \tilde{t} \to t\tilde{\chi^{0}_{1}}+$soft grid.

Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRA for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (800,1) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow SRB for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (600,300) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRC1 and SRC2 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (250,77) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRC3, SRC4, and SRC5 for a signal model with top squark pair production in the case where both top squarks decay via $\tilde{t}_1\to t^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$ with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^0_1)=$ (500,327) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (750,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (800,100) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (750,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (750,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (750,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (800,100) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRD-high for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV with $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (750,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (400,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{t}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (600,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (400,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (400,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (400,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (600,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRD-low for a signal model with bottom squark pair production in the case where both bottom squarks decay via $b\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1\to bW^{(*)} \tilde\chi^0_1$, with $m(\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)-m(\tilde\chi^0_1) = 1$ GeV witht $m(\tilde{b}_1,\tilde\chi^{\pm}_1)=$ (400,200) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Cutflow for SRE for a signal model with gluino pair production in the case where both gluinos decay via $\tilde{g}\to t\tilde{t}_1\to t\tilde\chi^0_1+$soft and $\Delta m(\tilde{t}_1, \tilde\chi^0_1)=5$ GeV with $m(\tilde{g},\tilde{t}_1)=$ (1700,400) GeV. An integrated luminosity of 36.1 $\mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ is assumed when calculating the weighted yields. For the derivation skim at least one of the following four criteria is required: $H_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 150 GeV; at least one loose electron with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two loose electrons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; at least one muon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two muons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 20 GeV; or at least one photon with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 100 GeV or at least two photons with $p_{\mathrm{T}}$ $>$ 50 GeV.

Selection acceptance times efficiency as a function of WPRIME mass at truth level for left- and right-handed WPRIME MC. The total efficiency curves correspond to the sum of the efficiencies of the one b-tag and two b-tag categories.

Cutflow (efficiency with respect to total number of events in %) for several WPRIME masses in the left-handed and in the right-handed model for hadronic top-quark decays.

Overview of the signal acceptance times efficiency (A x Eff) for the hadronic top-quark decay for both categories, the predicted cross section times branching ratio to TOP BOTTOM, as well as the observed 95% CL limit on the cross section times branching ratio for several WPRIME masses in the left-handed and in the right-handed model. The expected signal event yields in the two categories for 20.3 fb-1 of 8 TeV data are also shown.